Debates and Proceedings
of the
First Constitutional Convention
of West Virginia

December 12, 1861

The Convention was opened with prayer by Rev. Thomas H. Trainer, member from Marshall.

MR. VAN WINKLE. Before the regular business is taken up I would ask the
Clerk to read the 35th rule. I do it in no invidious spirit, because I am satisfied many members are ignorant of it.

The
Secretary read the rule as follows:

"35. When
the Convention is about to rise, every member shall keep his seat
until the president shall have announced the
adjournment."

MR.
WILLEY. Mr. President, I desire to observe the rule under which
a member has no right to absent himself from the sittings of the
Convention except upon conditions. Circumstances, I think, make it
necessary that I should be absent for eight or ten days -
unfortunately duties in two different bodies. I wish to go to
Washington to-night, sir, to be absent eight or ten days and
respectfully ask leave of absence for that length of
time.

MR.
IRVINE. Mr. President, it is my purpose only to argue one
single question. That is whether we would be transcending our
powers to extend the boundaries. . .

MR.
WILLEY. Will my friend allow the vote to be taken on this
motion first? or I may perhaps have to leave the body before it can
be acted on.

MR.
POMEROY. I move that Mr. Willey have leave of absence for ten
days.

The motion
was agreed to.

MR.
IRVINE. Mr. President, I wish to argue the question before this
house, whether we would be transcending our powers to extend the
boundaries prescribed by the ordinance passed last August, so as to
embrace other counties not represented here; for instance the
county of Pendleton and the county of Frederick. To arrive at a
clear conclusion upon this subject, first I wish to consider this
question, Mr. President, leaving out of view for the present that
the legislature may give its consent to the exercise of this power
after that power has been exercised. Leaving out of view that
question for the present, I wish to argue the question whether or
not we are transcending our powers in extending the boundary so as
to embrace other counties not represented here.

Now, in
order to arrive at a clear and correct conclusion on this subject,
Mr. President, it is necessary that we should ascertain from what
source we derive our power. It will not be pretended that we derive
it from the ordinance of the convention that was passed last
August. It seems to me clear that we derive our powers from the
people that we represent on this floor. We represent the people of
the thirty-nine or forty-two counties. We derive from them the
power to make a constitution for them. Where do we get the power to
make a constitution for the people who are not represented on this
floor? - for the people of Pendleton, Frederick and other counties.
Do we possess the power to make a constitution for them? If so,
whence do we derive it? I think a gentleman on this floor, on the
other side of this question, a few days ago, said we were the
embodiment of the people; that we could do what the people could
do. Then, I say, can the people within these limits make a
constitution for the people of other counties not represented on
this floor? Even if we possess all the powers that are possessed by
our constituents, do they possess the power to make a constitution
for the people of five other counties? If they do, they possess the
power to make a Constitution for twenty, thirty or forty other
counties, it seems to me.

It is
clear to my mind, Mr. President, that they do not possess this
power; that it would be an assumption of power on our part. But
some allusion has been made to the ordinance of last August, passed
by the convention. What effect is that ordinance to have ? We do
not derive our powers from the ordinance passed last August; but
that ordinance, Mr. President, has the effect to restrict and limit
our powers to the boundary prescribed by that ordinance. Can we go
beyond that boundary without the consent of the Legislature of
Virginia or without the consent of the people occupying the
territory beyond the limits of the thirty- nine counties? That
convention, Mr. President, represented the State of Virginia. We
cannot include one inch of the territory of the State of Virginia
without obtaining the consent of the State of Virginia. Can we
extend the boundary so as to include the ten other counties without
the consent of the State of Virginia, and without the consent of
the counties to be included? Have we not as much right to include
ten counties beyond the Ohio river?

But then
this objection, so far as the consent of the state is concerned, is
to be obviated by obtaining the consent of the legislature after
the power has been exercised. That is conceding that we at this
time do not possess the power. It seems clear to my mind, Mr.
President, that we have no authority to include within this
boundary any counties beyond the line prescribed by the ordinance
of the convention, unless we place it on the ground of absolute
necessity. I am in favor of including Morgan, Berkeley and
Jefferson. I place this upon the ground that it is absolutely
necessary that we should have those three counties in addition to
the counties of Hampshire and Hardy; because without those three
counties, unfavorable legislation on the part of Virginia might mar
the prosperity of the new State as well as of the State of Ohio and
of some other states. I think then it can be justified on the
ground of necessity, and I place it upon the ground of necessity -
that we must have these three counties; and I shall vote for the
proposition of the gentleman if it is confined to those three
counties. But I do not think that the counties of Pendleton and
Frederick ought to stand on the same footing. We cannot contend
that it is absolutely necessary for the welfare of the new State
that the counties of Pendleton and Frederick should be annexed to
the new State. I do not think we possess the power to annex them. I
think we can make the other three counties an exception to the
general principle on the ground of absolute necessity, and upon
this ground I shall rest my vote for the introduction of those
three counties.

MR. VAN
WINKLE. On a certain occasion, sir, in the House of
Representatives of the United States, a member from the State of
Louisiana got up - in the old times, it was - and made a speech
most bitterly denouncing the operations of the tariff. He then came
to deal with the subject of sugar, sir, and thought by all means a
good heavy duty ought to be laid on sugar. Old John Randolph, who
as everybody knows, had some queer ways about him, got up and said
he thought the gentleman had made a perfectly suicidal argument,
because what he had said against the tariff killed what he had said
in favor of the duty on sugar, and what he had said in favor of the
duty on sugar killed his argument against the tariff (Laughter). I
think, sir, the argument of the gentleman who has just sat down,
although it does not come perhaps strictly in that category, is
very nearly akin to it. If we can take in these three counties for
any reason whatever, then, sir, the power is conceded to take in
all we please. Now, sir, the gentleman's opinion is not to govern
us here. It is the opinion of the whole of us. The gentleman thinks
Morgan, Berkeley and Jefferson may properly be admitted. Very well,
sir; his opinion ought to be regarded, certainly, and will be
regarded by every member. I think Pendleton and Frederick ought to
be. Each opinion is entitled to equal consideration. That is the
whole amount of it, sir. The gentleman very properly states that we
are sent here to represent the people, to make a Constitution.
Well, sir, this matter can be narrowed down to a very few words. We
are representing the people who desire to have a new State; and it
would take a power greater than exists anywhere except in the
people to prevent us from making that new State to suit us. When he
talks about the limited power of this Convention he must include
everything, because this Convention in fact has no power. It may
ask for informal meetings to be held in each county, but they can
give no such election legal force or effect. It is therefore that
we have had to resort to the state authority. When they permit us
to hold an election under the sanction of the law, to vote and make
returns with the proper officers, it means something. If we had
decided upon these meetings, with a legislature in favor of us, the
course would have been to call a meeting in each county, and in
that meeting to have sent delegates to a Convention, the same as to
a political convention and nothing could have hindered us. Then,
sir, after we had made the Constitution to suit us, ours is but a
proposition. We propose to erect a new State - and is there any
harm in it? Cannot we propose what we please? Then, sir, if we
wanted to have a vote on the adoption of the Constitution, that
must be again done in an informal way. They must ask the people to
assemble and express their sentiments pro or con on the subject.
Not a thing can we do if the question is to come down to any power
that is vested in this Convention. Well, sir, a lapse of four
months has transpired since the action of this August convention.
Is it not possible that there may have been some change of
circumstances in that time? We may have some new light; and it is
entirely possible we may be much better able to discuss and fix
upon this subject than that convention was, not on account of
superior ability but because the difficulties then surrounding some
questions have been partially removed. I think every gentleman will
admit that we do know some of us who were members of that
convention tried to get this territory included. And shall we for a
mere technicality - for the mere sake of a county court practice -
forego the opportunity presented to us of making this State, by
this extension of its limits worth something when it is made? Shall
we forego the opportunity of placing within the territory and under
the authority of the State we are about to erect and of fostering
that great improvement that is so dear to all of us and on which
our very prosperity depends? And then, sir, while we propose to
take these counties that lie together, if as the gentleman thinks,
we may take these three lying on the border, are we to take this
little neck of territory and not take the adjoining county of
Frederick which binds them together as it were and makes them a
continuous territory? Why, sir, it might easily be shown that
Frederick is as important to us in connection with these business
interests as either of the others. The southern terminus of the
Winchester Railroad is in Frederick. It is a branch of the
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad - a valuable branch and feeder it will
be to it one day. We are interested in having that road maintained
by every source of prosperity it can unite to itself; and to say we
are to limit ourselves to these three counties through which this
road passes, while those immediately adjoining may have as much
control over its business as those three through which it runs,
will not be wise or statesmanlike. The idea that county lines are
anything in a matter like this is a mistaken idea. Counties are a
mere subdivision of territory. The question presented to us is not
whether this county or that is to come in. The designations of the
Convention, although apply to districts, although for convenience
counties are named. We consider that a certain scope of territory
ought to be added to the new State. As this resolution now stands,
sir, it appears to take the vote of a majority of the inhabitants
within the district proposed to add, and for greater certainty, on
account of the peculiar state of things it is added that there
shall be a majority of the counties. That is to insure as far as
such things can that there shall be a tolerably full vote - that
the vote when got should be an expression not of the inhabitants of
the county as such but of the inhabitants of the district.
Gentlemen speak of counties unrepresented on this floor. Members on
this floor answer for a dozen counties, while we have no sort of
evidence that any one of them was elected. Yet we have taken them
in. Thirty-nine counties were put in the ordinance by the August
convention, though some of those counties were known to be opposed
to this movement. Then, sir, we apply to these additional districts
the very principle that the convention of August applied to the
thirty-nine counties. They put them in one district. They had not
even a provision that a majority of all the votes of the counties
should accede to it. They said a majority of all the votes cast
within the embraced by the thirty-nine counties should bind them
all. For what reason, sir, are we now to alter the very principle
that they have taught us, and assume another, that every little
county may defeat the whole? Sir, you can bring it down to every
road precinct. You may say that every incorporated town is to be
consulted, and if that town of perhaps five hundred to a thousand
population does not accede the votes representing twelve hundred
outside of it in the same county are to be rejected. The principle
is just as feasible as the other. They are only subdivisions made
for the purpose of convenience. It strikes me, sir, it is almost
too late in the day to raise this question. The Convention by a
three-fourths vote yesterday determined those counties should be
admitted. On a previous occasion they have determined, to put in
others without giving them the privilege of saying whether they
wanted to come in or not. Following the action of the August
convention that has been determined by a considerable majority, and
it appears to me it is too late to raise the question of authority,
when we come to deal with these counties, when the friends of
admitting new counties have settled the principle that we will take
them in whether they want to come in or not.

The
question then recurs on the adoption of the whole, and if any
gentleman wishes to make the objection, he has a perfect right to
make it. But I think the members of the Convention, or a majority
at any rate, must be convinced that if this Convention is to be
tied down to the narrow letter of the law as contained in the
ordinance, with the interpretation given to it here, had better not
have assembled - if it has no power over the only subject that it
is entrusted with; and that is, to make this State suitable to the
inhabitants who are to live in it. Now we changed the day, we
changed the name, we have voted in other counties, on three or four
different occasions arising on different subjects. The Convention
then by large majorities in each case, voted that they have the
power over this subject.

MR.
POMEROY. My friend who has just taken his seat appears to be
speaking on a different subject, or rather different from what I
design offering a few remarks upon. I agree with the position he
takes exactly about leaving it to the people; but the amendment
that is now before the Convention for discussion, is to bring these
people in without leaving it to the people at all - but take in
these entire seven counties, nolens volens, without any vote
at all. That is the amendment of the gentleman from Doddridge now
before the Convention.

MR. VAN
WINKLE. I was replying to Mr. Irvine and went as far as I
thought he went. I do not consider that that fact affects his
argument or my reply to it.

MR.
POMEROY. No, sir; I do not know that it does.

MR.
IRVINE. I was arguing the question whether we had a right not
without the consent of the counties but without consent of the
State.

MR. VAN
WINKLE. I misconceived the gentleman's argument.

MR.
IRVINE. That was the question before the house.

MR.
POMEROY. The gentleman from Wood is all right only that he was
not discussing the amendment. Now I am opposed to the amendment of
the gentleman from Doddridge for various reasons: on the ground,
first, that the people there have given no expression of a desire
to be united with us. I am willing they should have an opportunity
to express that desire. It is now proposed to bring in these seven
counties without asking them whether they want to come in or not -
to just throw the line around them, including even Frederick, and
all that portion of the Confederate army there, without asking them
anything about it. I am opposed to that because they have not said
they want to come in, and I think they ought at least to have
another opportunity. And besides, it has been argued here ably and
eloquently by these very gentlemen that now take the ground that we
may bring them in and regard them another tier, already decided to
be thrown out, and that all they wished in the world was to let
these people say: they did not want to force them out at all. That
was the great argument. All we ask is to say to these people you
shall be excluded if you say you desire to come in. But now the
same gentlemen that argued this way, want to bring them in without
asking them at all. The argument was adduced in the case of
Greenbrier, etc., that they could not possibly have an opportunity
to express an opinion against the time specified. But the argument
on the other hand is that a portion of these counties have already
expressed a desire, and the others are so made up of loyal men that
they can express a desire. Well, then, why not give them an
opportunity? Why endeavor to bring a people in contrary to their
wishes, if they have a desire to come in and there is an
opportunity for them to express that desire? But another reason: if
you take these people in without leave to say whether they desire
to come in or not you must either let them vote on the Constitution
or else say they shall not vote on it. One of two things must be
so. Suppose you do not let them vote, is it a matter of justice to
include them contrary to their will and then force a constitution
upon them when they have not the privilege of voting? But I suppose
the other policy would be pursued, to let them vote. Here you will
have seven counties casting a vote of eleven thousand. Not only so,
but all that army now numbering at least ten thousand men within
these boundaries. These soldiers not only vote once, but vote as
they did at Harpers Ferry on the ordinance of secession, two or
three times. Where is your provision for purging your polls? The
soldiers at Harper's Ferry went up and voted and then came back and
voted again. But here, it is a well known fact that this
Constitution will not meet with the approval of every voter. There
never was a constitution made by man of which I have a knowledge
that met with the unanimous consent of the people. Suppose the vote
is very close in our counties and we barely succeed in carrying it,
are we going to have a new state with this hostile vote against it
down there? Well, now you are in favor of a new state. Well, but I
am not in favor of voting for a constitution, that these men
however talented and wise they may be, will not let us have any
hand in making. And they would go to the polls and vote against the
Constitution. Gentlemen, there are men in other counties
represented on this floor, loyal men, who will vote against a new
state. And it is not true that because a man is in favor of the new
State he will be in favor of a constitution. Men in my county voted
against a new state, yet voted to be represented on this floor -
voted to send men here to make a constitution for the new State and
yet voted against a new state. Man is not always consistent. And
here these men would say, strongly as we are in favor of a new
state, we will not go into it subject to the arbitrary power of
these men that assembled in Wheeling, threw a line around us and
included us contrary to our will. We will not let them tear up all
our former plans and submit to these new plans; because the plan
already foreshadowed does tear up everything in the old
organization of the State. All our system of county affairs will be
entirely new if the plan that is foreshadowed be adopted. So in
regard to our judiciary and legislative departments. It will be so
in regard to everything. It will all be new. And here men say we
have to submit to a new thing. Men will say talking like this: I
have always been a justice and they are going to throw me out by
abolishing county courts. And there is no telling what amount of
influences will be brought to bear against this Constitution. There
may be counties that will give a majority against it represented on
this floor. And are we going to hazard this whole thing by this?
And why has such a change come over the views of my friend from
Doddridge? He was strongly in favor of just submitting to the
people and saying, if you desire to, come in; if not, stay out. And
now he turns around and says, you shall come whether you will or
not, they are so essential to the life of the State. Well there is
some of them I am in favor of bringing in, but I want them to come
in accordance with the original plan of the committee, or some
other. There may be various plans better than this one. I do not
believe in coercion in all cases. The doctrine of coercion may be
abused, at any rate, in everything. There is some similarity in
this thing - coming in and leaving off the old. It is like a young
lady breaking off and leaving her man for life. It will never be a
happy relation without the full consent of both parties. But it
would be a wonderful stretch of imagination to suppose that
Winchester would vote in our favor, if the vote were taken today.
All that region of country would vote against us if at all; and
what evidence have we that the Confederate army will be
gone?

MR. VAN
WINKLE. Every information from Frederick county leads me to
believe that the people there do wish to unite with us. The last
news received from that section of the State show a very numerous
majority against the ordinance of secession; and I think I can
appeal to the gentleman from Monongalia to show that Frederick is
all right.

MR.
POMEROY. Well, I have no doubt there is an Union sentiment, and
I wish therefore to leave it to the people. I have no doubt the
gentleman from Wood could have made a Union speech there at one
time and received the plaudits of the people, but I very much doubt
whether he could do it now and be very safe. At least if I valued
my life I would not like to make a Union speech at Winchester at
the present time. Circumstances alter cases. Those people are
smothered down. There are as good Union men in New Orleans as any
man, but they dare not say they are Union men. But why do we try to
include these people when they are so surrounded that they cannot
express their desire. By the resolution as amended we have got
three stricken off, so that four will now bring the whole seven in.
Why then should we endanger our whole new state movement by the
amendment now before us? I do hope the gentlemen composing this
Convention will look at this matter in the true light, and not
endanger the Constitution by running the hazard of these people
voting. Because in their present excited and turbulent state of
mind, and under the influence of the powers that pretend to be the
legally ordained powers at Richmond, and with their present
railroad connections, they will not vote. I understand from one of
the gentlemen that lives in one of the counties that has partially
complied with the rule, that they do not wish to come in, but want
the people to have another opportunity to say they desire to be in.
But here is an amendment that proposes to make them come in whether
they want to come or not. Now, I think, Mr. President, I will not
weary the Convention further, unless there is something said that
calls for remark.

MR.
STUART of Doddridge. Mr. President, the gentleman from Hancock
says that for various reasons he is opposed to the amendment of the
gentleman from Doddridge. The gentleman from Doddridge is friendly
to the amendment for various reasons which he will take the liberty
of expressing to this Convention in a brief manner. Now, sir, men
will differ and there is always a reason for this difference. And
now, sir, let us look at -the reason the gentleman from Hancock and
the gentleman from Doddridge differ and see what the causes are,
and draw our conclusions from those causes. The gentleman from
Hancock lives up here in the tail, I believe, of the Panhandle. He
has a railroad there; I believe he calls it the Pittsburg
Railroad.

MR.
POMEROY. Pittsburg and Cleveland.

MR.
STUART of Doddridge. It runs through this tail up there. He has
been subjected to the unfriendly legislation of eastern Virginia.
He has felt the oppression of it. They have opposed his railroad
and he wants to cut loose from them. He has got his railroad and
everything he wants. He is safe; and that is the reason he is not
satisfied with the proposition of the gentleman from Doddridge. Now
the gentleman from Doddridge has another railroad and he feels as
deeply interested in it as the gentleman from Hancock in his. I
believe that is the very reason of the difference between the
gentleman from Hancock and the gentleman from Doddridge. He wants
to secure the protection and interest of his people. He has
accomplished his ends. He does not like to endanger the prospect of
securing the interest of his county of Hancock by looking to the
interests of the citizens composing my district, the county of
Doddridge. I am glad, sir, that I feel a little more charity
towards my friend from the county of Hancock than he does towards
the citizens of my district. I am willing to look to his interests,
the interests of those people. I am willing to take a general
survey and look to the interests of the whole of West Virginia.
What is that interest? Why is it, I appeal to you, that we are here
today forming a Constitution for the State of West Virginia and
asking for a division of the State of Virginia? I appeal to this
Convention to know why it is? What reason do you assign for it? I
understand, sir, it is because we are so located, so situated, and
our interests are so diverse to the interests of eastern Virginia
that it really becomes necessary for our welfare and happiness that
we should be cut loose and have a new state, because our trade and
commerce are in a different direction from that which the eastern
portion of our State wishes to force us into. Now the legislation
of the State has always heretofore been looking to force the trade,
travel and commerce of West Virginia into unnatural channels. Well,
sirs, we want to cut loose for this reason. We say to the world we
have good reasons why we ask to dissever the Old Dominion and set
up for ourselves. Well, if we do this and draw our lines and cut
ourselves off from the other trade, we want to foster and take care
of a line of trade that is vital to the interests of my
constituents although it may not be so to those of the gentleman
from Hancock; because I believe that his trade, and the trade of
the other end of the Panhandle up here, does not look much to the
trade and travel over the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. To cut us
loose from that or leave it in a position under the care and charge
of eastern Virginia and their unfriendly legislation, and they will
legislate in such a manner as to preclude the possibility of that
company keeping up that road. Thus we cut ourselves loose from all
our trade.

Now, it is
true as has been remarked here, that we have an outlet down the
Ohio and out at the mouth of the Mississippi. We have our western
connection now. Every man that is acquainted with the circumstances
and situation of the country knows that. Still we cannot compete
with the western trade. If we are forced into their market and if
we have not the advantage of a nearer market and less freight than
the west, we never in the world can compete with them. With the
grain growing country along the Ohio we cannot go into their
markets; but if they go to ours they have the additional expense of
the freights between us. But if we are forced into their market
with our produce, we never can compete with them, and it will be
the utter prostration of our country. Mr. President, if we are
guilty of the folly and hardihood of cutting ourselves loose from
these counties proposed to be included by the amendment, the future
historian will look back with wonder on our action if we preclude
ourselves from this privilege. Shame will attach to us if we put
ourselves in a position in which it may be possible we may lose
this privilege of traveling the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. Now
the argument of the gentleman from Marion proved conclusively it
was the intention of old Virginia to legislate against this road,
that the act of secession revoked the charter of the company and
that they have torn up our road and are throwing every obstacle in
the way possible. And although eastern Virginia may be chastised
and her ordinance of secession may not avail her anything, yet,
sir, if we cut loose from her she will always have a feeling
towards us to cause her people to legislate against our interests
to the utmost of her ability. It is our policy and duty as
statesmen, as men, to look to the interests of our new State and
our future prosperity and greatness; and place this thing if
possible out of the reach of these men who have always legislated
against our interests, and embrace our friends who have always
stood side by side with us in every conflict. I must be permitted
to say, in the Richmond convention last winter the counties we now
propose to include stood side by side with the northwestern
members, and never flinched, never divided - voted for the Union
and against the ordinance of secession. When I left the city of
Richmond in order to secure my personal safety, I found these men
still advocating the rights of western Virginia.

Well, the
gentleman says the resolution without amendment submits this
question to these people and they ought to be permitted to decide
it. I admit frankly that if this would be an opportunity of fairly
expressing their sentiments and coming forward to the polls without
any obstruction, I would be willing to leave it to them; because I
am satisfied what the result would be. But I have not got that
assurance. I understand this Constitution must be submitted to the
people of the new State, the consent of the legislature asked, and
then submitted to the Congress of the United States, during the
present session of Congress. That looks to the termination of this
matter between this and the first day of June. And, now, sirs, I am
inclined to believe from present circumstances and the surroundings
of all this matter, that the people embraced in these counties will
not have an opportunity of voting upon this question. A part of
Hampshire, and part of Hardy may. Supposing they do; if the other
four or five do not get to vote at all, you see, sir, that they are
excluded. We do not get them, because the rebel army is there. It
is argued by my friend from Hancock that because the army of Jeff.
Davis is down there in the county of Frederick, we ought not to
include these people. That is the very reason I want to include
them; because these people have not had an opportunity of
expressing their views, and because they will not have the
opportunity of voting; because, sir, it is necessary and vital to
our interests that we should include them, and it is necessary and
vital to their own interests. We have a community of interest.
Theirs is ours and ours is theirs; and why not include them? The
gentleman seems to think if we include them they will have a right
to vote on this Constitution, and they may possibly vote against
it. Now, Mr. President, it will be recollected it was the argument
in the August convention that we ought not to include these very
counties simply from the fact that if we did they might vote down
our proposition for a new state. Well, sir, if it had not been for
that argument and reason before the August convention that framed
our ordinance under which we are now acting they would have
included these people. And now see how widely mistaken they were!
And now, gentlemen, let me tell you that you will be woefully and
wonderfully mistaken when you oppose including these counties
because you are afraid they would vote down the proposition. We
found that there was no opposition. We found seventeen thousand
votes in favor of the new State, with less than a thousand against
it. Then, sir, if we are wise and frame a Constitution and submit
it to our people, it will be voted for as unanimously as the
proposition for a division of the State was voted for. And we need
not fear any difficulty in that respect. We need have no fear of
these few counties voting against our Constitution. And, sir, if we
frame a constitution that is to be so objectionable that we are to
exclude part of them for fear they will vote against it, it is no
reason at all why we should not include them. We should look to
framing a constitution adapted to their interests as well as our
own; and I am inclined to think they will look upon their interests
as homogeneous.

Now, Mr.
President, I deem it unnecessary to argue the right of this
Convention to include these counties because that question I
understand as having been settled by the inclusion of Pocahontas,
Greenbrier and other counties. It does seem to me after the
Convention has settled the question once, and by as large a
majority as the vote on that question indicated, it is unnecessary
to argue against the opinion thus expressed by the Convention. What
is the object of it? Now, if there is a motion made here to
reconsider and the question came up fairly, then that question
would be up for debate. That motion is not before us, and why are
we reiterating and arguing over and over again the question whether
this Convention has a right to include certain territory
peremptorily or not, after having decided it? It is something I
cannot understand. But it is intended to influence the minds of
this Convention to vote against the amendment I have
proposed.

Mr.
President, let me say, then, again that I do not think the August
convention had any power to restrict us in this respect; that they
are no party to this action. Now the gentleman from Lewis said he
was not willing to include certain counties while he was willing to
include certain others - that to include them we would have to get
the consent of the Legislature of Virginia. Well, now, if we cut
loose from every county here but the thirty-nine, will not we have
to get the consent of the legislature even to them? We are simply
taking the initiatory steps here. We are the first party in this
move. We no more doubt what the wishes are of the people who sent
us here, than the August convention knew. Now I presume the members
will represent the wishes and purposes of their various
constituents; that they know what the views and wishes of their
constituents are; and if the votes and sentiments of their
constituents are opposed to including any more territory in the
State of West Virginia, as a matter of course you ought to be
governed by it. And I must be permitted to say my constituents are
in favor of including that which is absolutely necessary for
self-protection and self-preservation. Then, sirs, we know what our
constituents want, and the convention in August did not know what
our constituents would want, because the question had never been
put to our people. The question they had a right to put was, do you
want to form a new State of West Virginia? That question was
submitted; and the very minute they attempted to draw the lines and
mark where the boundary should be and that we should not overstep
those lines, that very moment they took power upon themselves they
did not possess, because it was the people that had the right to
apply this question. And now I ask you if there has ever been the
question submitted to the people within the boundaries: Are you
opposed to the extension of the boundaries of West Virginia. It has
never been put. They have never passed on this question. But I
understand we come up here advisedly, understanding what their
wishes are who want this new State. And yet you desire to tie our
hands and say we shall not carry out the wishes of our constituents
because the August convention drew the lines and fixed the
boundaries and we cannot go outside of that.

Mr.
President, just one moment, let me say to the members of this
Convention, if by our action here this day we place it in the power
of these counties to cut loose from us, or if we take action by
which they may happen by circumstances by which they are surrounded
to be lost to us, we will look back with sorrow and shame upon our
act, just as sure as we stand here this day. Just as certain. Now,
why? If we go on and form our Constitution and submit it to the
people in these proposed boundaries and those counties are deprived
of the opportunity of voting, our Constitution is submitted to the
State of Virginia for their consent and then to Congress, and we
are received into the Union as a state, with the boundary as marked
out not including these counties, then, sir, no future action of
this Convention, no future action of the Congress of the United
States, no future action of the people of West Virginia can ever
include this territory without the consent of the state legislature
of old Virginia, and for one moment have you the assurance or most
distant hope that the legislature of old Virginia will ever consent
to give you one foot of her territory? Never in this world. Let me
predict the fact here now this day that if we do not now include
this territory old Virginia will never consent to us receiving one
foot more territory from her and we will lose that in all time to
come. And you will find that she will legislate adversely to the
interests of our great improvement which we are interested in more
than any other in western Virginia and which identifies us and
fixes our interest and trade and commerce different from that of
east Virginia, and authorizes us to say our necessities compel us
to take this step. We will lose the very object and purpose we have
had in view and all our labor will be worth nothing. I would not
give one cent, sir, for the State and deny to my people the very
right to travel over the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. Our every
interest and hope of future prosperity are connected with
it.

MR.
STEVENSON of Wood. Mr. President, after listening very
attentively to the speech of the gentleman from Hancock and that of
my friend from Doddridge, I am more impressed than ever with the
truth of that couplet which says:

"So
there's a difference you see
Twixt tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee!"

I think
that is all the difference there is between the gentlemen on this
question. I agree with both the gentlemen, as the Convention is
already aware, from what I said yesterday in regard to the
importance of possessing these counties through which this road
passes, if it can be done in accordance with the spirit of the
resolutions as originally proposed by the Chairman of the
Committee. Indeed I would be so far willing to modify this, and so
voted yesterday, as suggested by the amendment of the gentleman
from Ohio or as was proposed, I think but not offered by the
gentleman from Monongalia. Either of these modifications it seems
to me, would put the resolution in a better shape for the people
who inhabit these counties when the time comes that they can have
an opportunity of voting upon this question. But, sir, from what I
have heard and been able to discover myself in investigating this
amendment it does seem to me it is not judicious to attach it to
the resolutions as a condition of their passage. In the first
place, I think it will weaken the probabilities of their passage
before the Convention. In the next place, I think it is founded on
a principle that it seems to me is wrong in itself. But that there
has been a great deal said and I do not intend to trespass on the
time of the Convention in making any further remarks in reference
to it and in reference to this whole question of the right of the
Convention to exercise the authority which is proposed here, I
design to say nothing. It has been fully and elaborately discussed
here by many members of the Convention. But I will take it for
granted we have this extreme right of taking in these counties
against the wish of their people. Now, admitting that, sir, for the
sake of argument - because I do not deem the principle is a very
correct one - would it be judicious and politic to exercise that
right in the case of these counties? And now, sir, I have only one
thought upon that. It has occurred to me in looking over the tables
presented in the auditor's report and in the figures which
accompany the report of this committee gentlemen will discover in
looking over the list of votes on the new State proposition that
has been furnished by the secretary of the commonwealth that the
counties of Calhoun, Fayette, Logan, Nicholas, Wyoming and Webster
have not voted in reference to these matters, or at least there is
no return of their vote. Well, now, sir, these counties that have
made no return, have taken no action in reference either to the
election of delegates or the vote on this new State proposition,
are supposed to be identified in feeling and interest with the
secession movement - or at least the sentiment of the people is
against the establishment of this new State. That seems to have
been the idea conveyed in the discussions here on this question and
I suppose it to be the correct one. Now in these counties not
represented, we have a population of some 22,000 persons. Now, sir,
in this district over which we extended our boundary, and which it
was pretty generally conceded, but had not a majority at least
there was a very strong element of an unsound character, opposed
both to the new State and to the general government - I mean the
counties of McDowell, Pocahontas, Greenbrier, Monroe, and Mercer
which have a population of 31,000. Now we propose to add Jefferson,
Morgan, Hampshire, Hardy, Frederick and Pendleton with a population
of 65,000. I am speaking of the white population exclusively. Now,
sir, I suppose there is not a doubt entertained by any member of
this Convention that there is a large proportion if not a majority
of the people in all these counties who are hostile to this new
State and that have neither feeling nor sympathy with the objects
of this Convention or the establishment of this new State. We have
here a population of 118,000 in the counties which I have mentioned
which were not included in the thirty-nine but which we propose to
take in now. If I understand the character of the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Doddridge, if it is carried it will give the
persons in these additional counties through which the road passes
the right to vote with these others which I have mentioned on the
Constitution which is to be submitted to them by this Convention.
Now, sir, that makes it a question of policy, of expediency,
leaving the justice or right of the question entirely out of the
debate. Would it be expedient to introduce an unsound element
bearing so large a proportion to the Union element and new State
element within this new State as that? Would it not endanger the
passage of this Constitution? Now, sir, the fact was adverted to,
and I suppose it will not be denied by any one, that no matter how
good a constitution you may make, how much caution or discretion or
wisdom may be exercised by this Convention in making a
constitution, it is not to be supposed we can get any constitution
that will command the entire vote of the people within the limits
of this new State - not within the limits of the thirty-nine
counties, much less within the limits which have already been taken
and which we propose to take in.

Now, sir,
in this district which we propose to take in now, and in the
district of Pocahontas, etc., which we took in the other day, and
in the other counties where no vote appears to have been taken if
there was a vote at all, that vote and the polls at which it is
held must be entirely and absolutely in the control of persons, or
nearly so, who are opposed to this whole movement. I do not believe
myself that the secessionists within the limits of these counties
or within the original thirty-nine, intend always to maintain their
position of not voting. If they discover that they can get any
considerable element from the loyal or Union portion of our
citizens to vote against the Constitution which we adopt I think it
highly probable large numbers of them will turn in and vote with
them; and sir, if they should do it, and it is a strong probability
in my mind, they may defeat the very Constitution which we make
here. Now, sir, look at the difference between the population. We
have only something like 172,000 in the thirty-nine counties. You
must take from that number the 22,000 in the counties not
represented here.

MR.
LAMB. Two hundred and seventy-two thousand in the thirty-nine
counties.

MR.
STEVENSON of Wood. Yes, sir; that is correct, I believe. But in
taking this 22,000 from it - which you must in making this argument
you only make 250,000, in round numbers. So that you have 118,000
against that in counties in which the polls are almost certain to
be under the control of men opposed to this whole movement and
opposed to the Constitution. Take the number of votes that may be
cast then and the number that may be manufactured - for they have
wonderful facility for manufacturing votes - add that to the Union
vote which may be cast against this Constitution - I hope it will
be small - and I ask if it will not endanger the whole movement.
Now that is a very practical question; and these figures strike me
with much force. I think we cannot accomplish the purpose of
acquiring these counties without the adoption of the principle
incorporated in this amendment which might jeopardize the whole
movement. I am just as anxious to include the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad as any man in this Convention can be; and yet I would not
be willing to run even the risk of sacrificing this whole movement
after what we have done for the sake of getting either these
counties or that part of the railroad which runs through
them.

MR.
HALL of Marion. I am at a loss to comprehend how the gentleman
from Wood contemplates that it is possible we can include these
counties by leaving it to the vote of the people if there is an
element there that is in danger of swallowing up all the rest of
the Union element in the thirty-nine counties. I say if they have
the power to do with us as they may see fit; and they are inclined
to turn upon us in this movement how can we expect to include them
by their voluntary vote? I have not followed any of the minutia of
the figuring and calculation of the gentleman from Wood because I
maintain it is upon a basis that is not and will not be found to be
true - practically, I mean. But if it were, I for one would not be
willing to shape my course of action to avoid the evil or
difficulty that he says we will necessarily encounter by the votes
that may be cast by those opposed to us in every matter, the
secessionists. I stated on this floor once before that we represent
the loyal element, and I believe there is no contradiction of that
position. If we believe the disloyal part of those within the
proposed boundaries ought not to oppose us because they are
disloyal - because they wish to be part and parcel of the Southern
Confederacy - that they will combine with those who would be
dissatisfied with the Constitution; and by that means create a
power by which we would be overthrown - I say if we will quietly
submit to anything of that sort we deserve to be overpowered. I
want to know who have a right to vote and on what terms and
conditions they may vote. We have this question up about what
should disqualify a man from voting. I trust that in revolutionary
times that we are not to stand still with our hands tied with full
liberty for those we know to be our enemies in every effort. And I
should look in that direction for protection against a combination
of those in rebellion against the country, who would turn upon us
and upon every project of the loyal citizens. Now for one I beg to
say this, that the premises taken by the gentleman from Wood that
we are to count all these counties that have not returned a vote
here as unfriendly to us are not true practically. While it may be
a fact there now that there may be no considerable portion of the
people in those counties that are ready to vote for this movement
at present let me tell you what will necessarily be the effect.
Whenever the people throughout this country find that it is a fixed
fact that we are to have a West Virginia and find another thing
which will very soon be demonstrated, I trust and believe, that we
are not to have a Southern Confederacy - I say then in lieu of
finding these men rising up and combining to overthrow or thwart or
retard our plans and purposes, you will find them denying that they
ever opposed us; and you will find them coming right up to the work
and voting. I have no idea there is going to be any voting to any
considerable extent in opposition to this Constitution by
secessionists. There would be if they could see an advance power
that would make them believe it was possible for them to establish
a Southern Confederacy and extend the jurisdiction of such a power
over this country. Now I ask how many sane men can be found who
will even harbor a hope that if there were to be a Southern
Confederacy we would be any part of it? I know you will find
persons to maintain it, not because they believe it, but out of a
feeling of spitefulness growing out of disappointment. I don't
believe it. I don't believe that a man tells me the truth when he
professes to believe it if he is a man of sense. Well now, if that
be so we are not going to have votes cast against the Constitution
in this country. Men are not inclined to pursue a thing that they
must see at once impracticable and where the support of it can do
no good but must inevitably do them an injury. Well, there is
another thing about it. Why have we no vote from these counties?
Why is it we have had the number of secessionists we have in all
these counties. I ask you where, by whom and how was this element
of secession sown broadcast all over this country? Well, in this
manner. The places, the offices, the funds, every element and power
of the government, have been thrown into certain channels and
distributed to hired agents all over the country, who have for
their pay inculcated these sentiments and who have hoped to be paid
still further if they were able to work out and return to the
government a good account of their labors for which they were
hired. You will find every office, every position, I do not care
how low, they have endeavored to make respectable by attaching to
it pay, and you have hired persons all over this country; and all
the whole United States, the Government has had them employed to
sow these seeds of poison; and by their plausibilities they have
led along a class of persons that have been. but too confiding and
inclined to look to others to lead, and have confided in their
integrity. Because an honest man is very likely to believe
everybody else is honest. They have followed these men until they
have been led into the matter and this thing has been brought upon
them in a moment of excitement and their prejudices have been
appealed to. What is the condition now? These hirelings of the
government have gone down to see Mr. Davis and others. You are rid
of them; and, my word for it, you are rid of them for all time. Now
I take it the same causes produce the same or like effects
everywhere, and I judge of this thing by what I see and know in the
vicinity where I live. Can these men who have been misled be
influenced longer or again by these same persons? No, sir; those
very persons who would have followed those leaders if it cost them
their lives, would now if they should come back shoot them down
like dogs. And what is the fact? These people will not vote - did
not vote to any considerable extent - and why? They say we have
suffered ourselves to be led along; we have voted wrong once, and
we want to think of this matter deliberately, fully and calmly. We
want to know just what we are doing before we do anything again.
They are absolutely undecided. Thus it is a great many votes were
not given. But because of this thing now we are to conclude they
are lying back ready to rise against us. It is not so. Well, now
here, again, I believe it was the gentleman from Wood, or perhaps
my friend from Hancock or both, who argued that if you take in
these counties, Frederick, Hampshire and these railroad counties,
as they are termed, they will be an element that will vote against
your Constitution. Suppose they did; and then supposed there is a
possibility that the votes of the people of the thirty-nine or
forty-four counties may be so nearly equal that it may give the
balance of power to these other counties, and they may defeat our
Constitution. Well, suppose they do? What is the effect? It does
not destroy the State; but it delays the matter I confess and puts
us to the trouble of going to work and making a constitution that
would be acceptable. I would not like to place ourselves in that
predicament. But that would be the effect of it. You are either to
take in or leave out these counties. If you take them in we are
told the people there may have the balance of power and vote down
your Constitution. If you don't take them in you call upon my
people, you call upon all this region of country out here to vote
against it. Why? Because you are placing us in the position to use
the figure in my mind of being wedged between the devil and the
deep sea, and we cannot get out. Now would not that be the
position? Would we not be bound and constrained to vote against it?
Why? Because you are cutting us off from Maryland; you are
destroying this great artery that contributes more than any other
to our prosperity and the very means by which our industrial
interests and resources are made valuable to us; and we are
constrained to vote against it. And by excluding those counties you
kill it within the thirty-nine counties, and have no need to go
outside for an element to destroy it. My colleague said the other
day his people sent him here to make a constitution for the
thirty-nine counties. My people did not send me here to do that. I
take it upon myself to say what I know that in Marion they would
have voted this thing down but for the belief and assurance that it
would be part and parcel of the duty of this Convention to change
those boundaries. I tell you take the boundary of the thirty-nine
and Marion will not vote for it. She is not to be put up air-tight
in a jug and sealed up. She wants to work and have an opportunity
to do something. It is known I opposed that boundary in the other
convention. I came here expressly, sent for that purpose to aid
those opposed to the boundary, and I did aid it to the extent I
could, but I accomplished nothing. That thing was known to my
people. My people endorsed me by sending me back by a vote that was
nearly unanimous - scarcely one hundred less than the whole cast on
the division of the state. I take it therefore they have said to me
that my position heretofore was right, to oppose this boundary as
proposed by the June convention. I said to them I am opposed to
that boundary, and that convention ought to and would change it.
And they said to me by their votes, go back and do that thing.
Therefore I say Marion county did not send me here to make a
constitution for the 39 counties only. Now I take it that is the
fact elsewhere throughout the country. So far as the expression of
the people as to the right and propriety of going into this
question of boundary is concerned, I state this much in refutation
of positions that have been taken as to our power. And while I
would be disposed like the gentleman from Wood, to pass over this
thing as a settled question, yet because I find and believe it will
have an influence on the minds of members who believe they are
restricted in their action by the action of the June convention I
wish to impress and insist on one or two points that I believe are
conclusive arguments against that position. That is this. It was
very well argued by the gentleman from Lewis that in order to know
what our powers are, their scope and extent, what we may do and
ought not to do, we must enquire from whence we derive that
authority. He very justly and properly said we did not derive that
from the June convention. That is evident. Then his next position
was that we derived it from the people of the forty-one counties.
Well now, is that a fact? Now, I beg that members will remember the
argument of the gentleman from Wood. He tells us how we are acting
for a district without reference to county lines. It is a fact. I
ask you this, if we are to be trammeled by county lines how can you
act with any propriety in any case of necessity like this? Why,
sir, that is the very germ of secessionism. It is to talk about the
county rights. We have then to talk about town rights and
individual rights. It runs to that point. We draw a line here and
we describe it by county lines for convenience sake. And thus it
was that in the former convention I felt there was eminent
propriety in drawing our lines to the extreme point and that the
vote of that whole district should determine the question whether
we would or would not have a new State. Now we are proposing here
to extend these lines, beyond the representation on this floor; and
the gentleman from Hancock says it is utterly impossible at least
in the ordinary course of events and we need not expect that these
people in Frederick can possibly vote freely upon this question at
the time proposed. Well now, I think that is possible; and
therefore I am in favor of the amendment. I can tell you how it may
be. I trust the rebel forces will be driven beyond that point; but
there is this thing to be considered. When that is done, it will
take some little time before you can get that people to act on a
thing of that sort. And they are necessary. And I think while my
friend from Lewis says under the authority of the salus
populi he is in favor of taking these railroad counties and
none others. I maintain under that rule it is necessary to take in
everyone of these counties embraced in this section. They are so
connected with us that if we take part we must take all. I think I
am right in this; and if I am not the gentleman from Hampshire will
correct me. The representative from Hampshire says he does not want
to come in unless his people have an opportunity to speak on this
question again. I understood him to say they did not want to come
in here as an isolated part. They wanted the adjoining counties
with whom they are identified in every interest; that they must
necessarily have those other counties taken if they are taken into
this boundary. That I think was the statement, and that I think is
very reasonable and right.

MR.
CARSKADON. We would rather our county had a chance to vote on
it.

MR.
HALL of Marion. And so would I. I would prefer that there
should be no single man but what would have the right to vote; but
I would not sacrifice the interests of the masses for the sake of
the few. And if there is any doubt about having an opportunity for
a fair expression of opinion there then I would look to the
interests of all and act under the salus populi; and take
them nolens volens. It is our duty and right. We know we do
no detriment to that people. Their interests are with us and
whenever they are relieved from the oppression and power under
which they are now groaning, they will be with us. Their interests
and inclinations are with us, and every consideration will lead
them with us. And they will be bound when ever they can act, to
vote for this very thing because if they do not that road is
necessarily destroyed. They would be a mere outskirt of another
State that would deal to them unfriendly legislation. In another
way they would be driven to this thing. Necessity would drive them
to it. I objected yesterday to the presumption that they were not
represented here because they were not inclined to be; and I am not
making the declaration that they would be represented if they could
and would be in favor of this thing; but when we look at the
necessity, I ask what must be the position of that people? That is
the only way we can judge and the way we must come at this thing.
And I therefore must urge we consider this fact. We do not derive
the right from a particular county. It is only a method by which we
determine upon a regular representation. We do not come here with
county rights, but as a section; and we are governed by these
considerations, and not trammeled by county lines. And then when we
remember this further consideration that, as suggested by the
gentleman from Wood, all we can do amounts only to what? Only to a
recommendation - a suggestion - to the legislature, which has a
right to act independently of and in spite of anything we can do as
a convention, or that the June convention or any other, has done or
may do. No, sir; they have the power, they have the right, to act.
We can do nothing that amounts to anything more than a
recommendation or suggestion. And it may be asked, then why are you
spending so much time in the Convention? But it does amount to
something, because the members of the legislature will consider
that we are a body more immediately from the people and will
therefore reflect more certainly the sentiments of the people than
they do; and will feel themselves almost bound to be governed by
what this Convention will do. Therefore there is a propriety in our
consuming the time and doing what ought to be done. But whatever
doubts gentlemen may have with reference to our right, when they
remember it only amounts to a recommendation, and that the
legislature is a legislature of the whole state, Richmond included,
and that they have all power in the premises, and that they are the
power to whom is delegated authority to act irrespective of us -
therefore we ought to say what we believe the necessities and
interest, require at our hands. And then it goes to the
legislature; and when they act on that thing, if there is any
change of the condition of affairs that ought to influence them,
they will see it; they will act upon it and give it such weight as
it should have, and they will do just what they think right to do
all the time. Then they will act under the circumstances and do
what they believe the necessities of these people
require.

But I must
insist, as stated by the gentleman from Wood county that we are not
sent here for a specific and prescribed purpose - that there never
was a body of men who had the right to limit us, and that any
pretense to do so was arrogating to themselves powers they did not
possess and has no force or validity - as we have expressed
ourselves by setting aside this, that or the other. Because, if
that is the truth then you are bound to close the Convention and
submit - whatever you have got that looks like a Convention - you
must submit to the people before you are going to adjourn. Now, if
you are going to obey them, do so. You cannot do it. You see a
necessity they did not foresee. Well now, they did not and could
not foresee and tell what would be the condition of affairs now.
And thus it is there is eminent propriety in our acting in this
matter. And when we remember that it all means merely a
recommendation, why we urge upon the consideration of the power
that has the whole control of this thing, we have a right to
include them absolutely as part of this section and that we ought
to do it.

I am in
favor of the amendment because if you allow the matter to be
submitted to a vote there, with all the contingencies, it is only
trammeling the legislature in its action with reference to the
matter. And if we include them it is perfectly competent, if not
the reason may be apparent when they act for them to exclude them.
If there are any facts, any circumstances, they may have that we
have not, it will be for them to act on them and exclude them
afterwards. But I do insist there is an impropriety in fixing an
election to be held if we believe the circumstances will be such
they cannot hold an election. I think there are more chances there
in most of those counties than in the district with reference to
which we took this same action a few days ago. But still there are
chances that we may not have their action in time, and therefore I
am for taking them in absolutely. It does not amount to coercion,
really. We have no power to take them in; but that does not make
the matter obligatory on them until the legislature has acted. But
if the legislature sees any good reason why they would change it as
they have a right to do. I trust we will not feel ourselves tied
up, but will act upon this matter looking to the great good of the
people with respect to their absolute necessity and that we will
not be so tender about a supposed objection over there. It will be
time enough to look to that when we know it. And we will do what we
conceive ought to be done; and when we do that, we do really what
our people sent us here to do.

MR.
WILLEY. Mr. President, I think we are ready to take the vote,
sir, and I do not rise to make a speech again. It is interesting to
hear members repeat the arguments which we have repeated a half
dozen times; but, then, I do not know, sir, that it will amount to
anything in the result of our deliberations. As I remarked
yesterday I am inclined to concede the right, and was willing to
proceed on the principle as established by the Convention. This
Convention has established the right to include them without
submitting to the vote, as I think arbitrarily. But I do not rise
to repeat the argument which I made in opposition to this principle
the other day. Perhaps gentlemen may have accomplished something by
reiterating the same argument. Continued dropping wears the stone
after while it is said. I confess, sir, however, that I am only the
more strongly and fixedly convinced that if this amendment passes
it will violate a fundamental principle more important and more
valuable than any advantage we can derive from adding these
counties to us - although I am willing to admit the force of the
arguments of gentlemen in that respect in their full latitude and
extent.

I rise
simply, sir, to say this much that I may be placed right on the
record, not to repeat the argument: there is one of the arguments
of the gentleman from Marion which is new, and therefore I choose
to attempt to answer it. That the action of this body is
recommendatory - that is not new; but moreover, that it
accomplishes nothing. Why, sir, we have been spending a great deal
of time then to accomplish nothing. Sir, it is designed to
accomplish a violation of the very fundamental principle to which I
alluded. It is true we can only recommend, but our recommendation
is designed to have some influence; and supposing that the
legislature should coincide with the gentleman from Marion in his
views and assent to a division of the state including these
counties under consideration, and Congress should also give its
assent, and these counties should thus be included what would be
the result as to them? It is true, I suppose, that the Constitution
which we prepare will be submitted to them for their adoption or
rejection; but gentleman say it is not at all probable many of
them, that these counties can vote upon the Constitution. It is not
at all probable. It is alleged that they will be in a condition
which will enable them to express their opinion for or against the
Constitution which we may ordain, and therefore they argue we had
better include them at once. Why, sir, we are placing these
counties in a very awkward position. We are adding to their
misfortunes, multiplying the grievances you wish to impose on them.
We are taking their destinies entirely into our own hands.
According to that argument they may not have even an opportunity to
vote on the Constitution which they had no voice in framing. That
is to say we may absolutely take it upon ourselves to frame a
Constitution without consulting them, and practically to impose it
on them without them having an opportunity to give their assent or
dissent. It is this grievance to which I allude, and the grand
fundamental principle which prevents me from voting for the
amendment. Although they may have an opportunity of voting on the
Constitution, as I hope they will have if included, they have no
opportunity of being heard here on this floor in the formation and
ordination of the fundamental law under which they are to live. I
shall not repeat the arguments. As between the amendment and the
original proposition, the original proposition does not meet my
approbation, but the amendment makes it worse; and therefore I
shall have to go against the amendment, reserving my judgment for
the original proposition if the amendment is defeated. I shall
perhaps offer an amendment to the original proposition if this
amendment should be defeated.

MR. VAN
WINKLE. Does the gentleman intend to offer the amendment he
indicated yesterday?

MR.
WILLEY. I do, sir.

MR. VAN
WINKLE. It might be properly offered, I think as a substitute
for the present one. While I have no doubt of the right, as I have
two or three times stated, of this Convention to adopt this
amendment and put things on the basis where this would leave them,
I still think that possibly it might be injudicious. It is very
possible, indeed, that the people living in those counties, remote
from us, not having such immediate connection with us as those in
the other boundaries, being populous, wealthy and intelligent
counties, might infer if they were not consulted about this matter
it was something in derogation of them, and upon that premise they
might be induced to vote against their connection with us, while
otherwise they would choose to come in. I make this suggestion to
the friends of the present movement, because, it has been weighing
on my mind ever since it was proposed in the Convention; and I have
that kind of doubt about the propriety of it, arising not from the
mere question of right, but arising from its practical operation,
that it might offend those whom we should desire to conciliate.
They might think they were not treated as well as they ought to be.
The amendment of the gentleman from Monongalia, with some
modification would seem to be a judicious one; if this is voted
down, and I should like to have heard a comparison between the two
- I think the amendment of the gentleman from Monongalia - the one
that has been talked of - if it included certain counties as a
district which should be dependent on one another, and if a
majority of the district were favorable, and then left the
operation with the other counties, in the way he had drawn it up,
it would accomplish the views of every member who wishes to see
these counties connected with us, and they would receive it as more
like a courtesy than voting them in without consulting
them.

MR.
WILLEY. I had understood the gentleman as desiring to offer
some modification to my proposition; and I supposed if I offered it
as an amendment to the amendment it would exhaust the privilege; I
therefore thought I had better let the vote be taken on this clause
by the Convention first.

MR.
BROWN of Kanawha. I must say, sir, we have come here to perform
the high duty of forming a state; and in doing that the high
consideration should be that course which would redound to the
prosperity of that state. It seems to me that when we have
considered that which really is necessary and proper, which
constitutes the great object of our assemblage, that if we should
find ourselves trammeled or annoyed by the ordinance that assembles
us, as wise men, assembled to effectuate a broad and great object,
we should free ourselves from that trammel. The gentleman from
Lewis found himself very much troubled. While he recognized the
importance - the almost necessity - of taking the step that was
proposed, he still bowed in deference without the means of
accomplishment. And he seemed to range himself on the side of the
ordinance against the right, while I find myself compelled to range
myself on the side of the right, and defend the rights of the
people, whether the ordinance should be in the way or not. The view
I have taken of this subject heretofore I have expressed to this
house - that I could feel the ordinance was no trammel, was never
intended to be; and that we do not here derive our power from that
ordinance. I, like the gentleman, hold my authority to act here is
derived immediately from the people; and that the authority is
delegated to accomplish the high end of the formation of a
constitution and state - not to defeat that very object by
following the letter of an instruction that has shown itself to be
utterly impossible to attain the end; that we have to violate it at
every step or go home without accomplishing that for which we were
sent.

Now, sir,
it seems to me that some of these counties are so essential, that
there are such high considerations and reasons for their inclusion
as renders it necessary that this Convention should take definite
action. The only difficulty in my mind has been the inclusion of
some others that do not seem to stand in that category. The county
of Frederick or Pendleton does not stand upon the high ground or
have the same claims upon us that the other counties along the
railroad do. But this Convention has determined in its wisdom and
power that Pendleton shall not be stricken out; therefore the
question results whether we shall abandon the railroad and all its
benefits to the State or abandon the county of Pendleton. The
question that troubles the gentleman last on the floor so much is
that we are here proposing to take action on this question without
consulting the wishes of these people. I confess this does not
trouble me. We have asked already in the case of these other
counties, and acted as I understand on this high policy of state
necessity - the security and safety and prosperity of not only
those people but all the rest of the people in the State. We have
acted on the principle that while we cannot have extended to them
the privilege and opportunity of expressing their sentiments and
being with us while circumstances are such as in all human
probability will entirely prevent them from having such an
opportunity if extended; and therefore we have come up to the high
consideration, it seems to me, of determining the question as men
and not trifling with it as children. But if the same reasons apply
to the counties in this category, I do not see how we should shrink
from the same action, that is, to extend to the people who will
have no opportunity to vote the same benefits as to ourselves,
which they can have no hand in at the time, and this Convention has
decided that they will not permit the legislature to extend the
time as circumstances may determine and the necessities may
develope - that it shall take place on the day prescribed. I say,
then, if when that time arrives these contingencies are such that
you will take no vote, then we fail to get them and settle the case
definitely. You not only endanger the success of the whole concern
by dallying to please these counties that may fail or may not fail
as the case may be. I go upon the ground of necessity and interests
of these people as well as our own, but that these people are like
ourselves actuated by their own interests, and that they have shown
heretofore an allegiance as clear and distinct as that of any other
people. That it cannot be supposed if they vote at all they would
seek to vote themselves with us unless you do violence to every
instinct of human nature by supposing they will vote against their
own interests. Hence, what are your hopes of securing the
efficiency of that road. It is that every interest that induced
them to vote for the Union when their brethren were going into the
Confederacy would influence them to vote to come into the new
State. Why was it the Union men of Augusta and Staunton were more
emphatically Union than any people in the State of Virginia, and
where there was as strong and deeply imbedded sentiment in behalf
of the Union as in any county in the State; and by their election
in February they showed, and by their delegates in the Convention,
and by all the past history of the county they have shown it. But
with the Covington and Ohio Railroad passing right through them and
terminating in Richmond, with the assurance of their delegates that
the Confederacy was a fixed fact and they would be compelled to be
a part of it with all their interests connected with the
Confederacy, we find them abandoning their love of the Union and
yielding at last to the seductive influences brought round them.
They took the railroad to the Southern Confederacy; and for the
very same reason, actuated by the very same motives, of self
interest, influenced by the same reasons which impel men to follow
their interests you find the people along the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad, knowing that whatever fate may befall the Confederacy
their destinies were inseparably united with Baltimore, and that
was in the Union; and so there they are found all for the Union. It
is the interests of these people that have induced these
differences of opinion. It is the main reason. But I say these very
interests now operate to induce them as well as us to stick
together and stand by the Union. I can see no reason why they would
vote against still continuing the securities and guaranties of that
road which secures their interests. That is the very object we are
now proposing in this action. We are two peoples in the State of
Virginia. One half of the state are calling us traitors; and we,
the other half, are calling them rebels. We are divided in
sentiment, in interest; we are divided in feeling, and divided now,
sir, in the directions in which we look for future security and
prosperity. These people live in our part; their interests are with
us; their lines of communication run with us; and the very reason
we are proposing to take them is, because our interests are
dependent, in a very great degree, on their safety and security.
Everything, therefore, almost, induces them, whenever an
opportunity to speak is afforded them to speak on our side. And the
question is shall we secure them that opportunity by now defining
the boundaries, at once fixing and prescribing them as we have done
in the case of these other counties, knowing what they will do
whenever they get an opportunity, or permit the want of an
opportunity to defeat the whole concern by extending them the
privilege they would never have the opportunity of exercising.
These are the motives that induce me to vote for this amendment.
And the only difficulty I find in my mind in the subject at all is
the addition of other counties that were not in the precise
necessity in my mind that this Convention has determined must go
along with them.

MR.
CARSKADON. I desire to be fully understood in the vote which I
intend to give on this question; and I wish the Convention to
understand that I am decidely in favor of the county of Hampshire
coming in, as I stated the other day, with the adjoining counties.
And I am in favor of her and the rest of the counties named in
section 5 (now I believe 7). I am in favor of their having an
opportunity to vote or give some intimation of their desire to come
in. If they are to be included arbitrarily, I think it wise and
proper that this Convention give them a chance first to vote; and
if that action, is to be had, let it be had or taken by the
legislature. They will know exactly the position in which the
counties stand; and if we make some provision by which if the
obstacles are removed they may vote we will not injure the cause in
the least, because the legislature will then have the whole thing
before them and they can fix the boundary as seems best. Therefore
I think it, as the gentleman from Wood has said, wise and judicious
to give them an opportunity, to extend this courtesy to them, that
they may if the circumstances permit, vote upon the question. These
being my views, as I before stated, I consider it a violation of a
fundamental principle, as the gentleman from Monongalia has said,
to arbitrarily include them, without a chance to vote, on the
organic law. Therefore, I am opposed to taking them in arbitrarily
in violation of that principle; and I would be compelled to vote
against the amendment on that account at any rate. But another and
stronger reason is, because I think we have not exhausted the means
which are in our power to give these people a chance to vote. It is
time enough as I before stated to let the legislature have the
ultimatum of including them arbitrarily if they must. Therefore I
feel constrained to vote against the amendment of the gentleman
from Doddridge.

MR.
LAMB. Mr. President, I have no doubt that the Convention is
anxious to decide the question and I shall detain them but a
moment. I may remark that I trust the Convention, notwithstanding
the vote which was taken yesterday will be disposed to adopt any
feasible measure for the purposes of insuring to the people of
these counties a vote on this subject. We may very properly have
disapproved of the amendment which was proposed yesterday; but
before we adjourn I do trust that the right of these people to vote
on this question will not be confined to a particular day, and that
the whole measure of including these counties in the new State will
not be defeated if upon that particular day it is impracticable to
exercise this right. With this view, that the Convention before it
adjourns, - before in finally adjourns - will adopt such measures
as will insure to the people of this district the right of deciding
this question for themselves, I must say that I cannot vote for the
amendment of the gentleman from Doddridge. It is well known that
upon the question of power, I have entertained no difficulty; but I
do think without attempting to argue the question, that to say to
these people "You shall come in," is not the most judicious mode of
accomplishing our object of getting them in. The considerations
which were urged by the gentleman from Wood, have great influence
with me on this subject. I believe we can get them in, we can have
them part of us, with their consent. We can have them included
within our boundaries within a reasonable time with their consent,
if proper measures are adopted for that purpose; and though I have
no doubt on the question of power, for our whole action is but
recommendatory, our whole action is to be submitted to the people
of the State for their ratification. I would have that consent
where it is practicable to obtain it within a reasonable time, and
I do think that by saying to these people, "You shall come in,
whether you consent or not" you are degrading really the whole
measure.

Without
detaining the Convention, I will beg leave to make a further remark
in explanation of this ordinance so often referred to. That
ordinance provided that this Convention might include the counties
of Hampshire, Hardy, Morgan, Berkeley and Jefferson, and such
counties as lie contiguous to them, if the counties to be added by
a majority of the votes given, should declare their wish to form
part of the proposed state. It is true that convention required the
vote to be taken on a particular day, but that particular day is
not the substance, not the substantial part, of this provision. The
Convention did intend that these counties should have an
opportunity of deciding that question for themselves - for all
these seven counties are strictly included in the language here
used. They did intend these and with them those contiguous should
become part and parcel of the new State if they were willing to do
so. It is but carrying out in substance the action of that
convention. It is not violating it substantially; for certainly
that convention did not intend that the particular day on which the
vote should be given should be entirely conclusive and final in
regard to so important a matter. That Convention acted, as I have
before stated, undoubtedly on the supposition that this vote should
be taken on the 4th Thursday of October; but they were mistaken in
it, and the question comes before us under circumstances which they
did not anticipate and provide for.

MR.
HAYMOND. I desire to say to you, sir, and this Convention that
I am opposed to the motion of the gentleman from Doddridge. I never
can vote for it. And in the next place I desire to say to my
distinguished friend from Monongalia if he offers his amendment I
shall vote for it with the greatest pleasure. Sir, I am not afraid
of this Baltimore and. Ohio Railroad being cut off. I shall vote
for the amendment, I say, of the gentleman from Monongalia. And I
beg to say whilst I am up that my colleague says he is representing
the people of Marion - that they want him to hunt up territory.
Sirs, I know something of that people. I tell my colleague, sirs,
the very last man I saw was a distinguished friend and he told me,
says he, "I know how you stand on these principles, and I want you
to stand by them and not jeopardize the State." I said to him,
sirs, I was coming down here for a new state; and by the gods I
would stand by it (Merriment). Sirs, the gentleman says that a
majority of the people of Marion are for extending the territory. I
have never seen a single man in the county of Marion except my
colleague who wants the territory extended. I have seen about
thirty since I have been here, and they have all told me to stand
by the boundary. I told them I intended to do it.

MR.
STUART of Doddridge. I call for the yeas and nays.

The yeas
and nays were ordered, on the motion made yesterday by Mr. Stuart
of Doddridge to amend the third resolution by striking out thereof
all after "State" in the twenty-second line, and being taken
resulted:

MR.
WILLEY. I do not know whether I shall be able to meet with the
Convention this evening. I therefore avail myself of this
opportunity to offer the amendments to the resolution indicated a
while ago.

MR. VAN
WINKLE. Will the gentleman be kind enough, as he is going to
leave us, to occupy one or two minutes in explaining the spirit and
force of them.

MR.
WILLEY. I will read them. I will state before doing so my
object is to begin with the territory that is contiguous to us and
take it in as it may come in so as to keep each part voting in
contiguous and adjacent until we run against a county that sees
proper to vote itself out. That is take each county as
follows:

"That the
counties of Pendleton, Hardy and Hampshire ought to be included in
the proposed State of West Virginia, provided, a majority of
the votes cast in the said county of Pendleton, and also in the
said county of Hardy, and also in the said county of Hampshire, at
elections to be held therein, on the day of , 1862, is in favor of
the adoption of the Constitution to be submitted by this
Convention.

RESOLVED,
That the county of Morgan, ought to be included in the said State
provided a majority of the votes cast therein, on the day
aforesaid, is in favor of the adoption of said Constitution, and
provided, further, that the said counties of Pendleton,
Hardy and Hampshire shall be included therein, as
aforesaid."

You will
perceive if these counties vote themselves in and the county of
Morgan also votes to come, she may come in; but if the other
counties of Hardy, Pendleton and Hampshire voted not to come in,
then the county of Morgan could not come in. I wish to take
territory, as they say, "Ranging" - as it comes.

Then I
have a third resolution as follows:

"RESOLVED,
That the county of Berkeley ought to be included in the said State,
provided a majority of the votes cast therein on the day
aforesaid, is in favor of said Constitution; and provided,
further, that the said counties of Pendleton, Hardy, Hampshire, and
Morgan shall be included as aforesaid."

I have for
resolution four:

"RESOLVED,
That the county of Jefferson ought to be included in the said
State, provided a majority of the votes cast therein on the
day aforesaid, is in favor of the adoption of said Constitution;
and provided, further, that the counties of Pendleton,
Hardy, Hampshire, Morgan and Berkeley shall be included in said
State as aforesaid."

Then I
have the last resolution:

"RESOLVED,
That the county of Frederick ought to be included in the said
State, provided, a majority of the votes cast therein on the
day aforesaid, is in favor of the adoption of said Constitution,
and provided, further, that the counties of Pendleton,
Hardy, Hampshire, Morgan and Berkeley, shall be included in the
said State in manner and form aforesaid."

I do not
care if Jefferson does not come in because Frederick would make
proper and contiguous territory although Jefferson might not come
in. I have not time to explain the resolution further. They explain
themselves however.

(Mr.
Willey's motion, as recorded by the Secretary, though not made
directly, was to strike out all the third resolution of the report
of the Committee on Boundary after "Resolved" and to insert
the five resolutions read by him.)

The hour
of twelve o'clock, M„ having arrived, the Convention took a
recess.

THREE O'CLOCK, P. M.

The Convention reassembled.

MR. BATTELLE. Mr. President, I have a resolution which I
wish to offer.

It was reported by the Secretary as follows:

"RESOLVED, That the debate shall cease and the vote be taken, on
the report of the Committee on Boundary, this evening at 4:30
o'clock, provided that nothing herein shall be construed to prevent
members from offering amendments to the report."

MR. BATTELLE. I do not wish to discuss the resolution,
and I certainly do not wish to abridge debate improperly. I would
remark, however, what is known to everybody, that we have been
nearly two weeks on this one chapter and unless we come to a close
at some time there is no prospect of getting through our business
in reasonable season. There must of course be no limit to the
offering of resolutions - supposing that what may yet be unsaid can
be so adjusted as to come within the time suggested.

MR. STUART of Doddridge. I would like to hear the
resolution read again; I could not hear it.

The Secretary again read the resolution.

MR. STUART of Doddridge. I move to amend that the debate
shall cease on the division of the question.

MR. BATTELLE. If I understand it, we are discussing the
report of the Committee on Boundaries.

MR. STUART of Doddridge. Well, let the debate cease on
that report. I would like to hear the resolution read again.

The Secretary again reported the resolution.

MR. HALL of Marion. I have done considerable talking on
this question and I admit we have consumed a good deal of time; and
I have no disposition to prolong the discussion beyond what may be
absolutely necessary; but if there is anything of importance in the
whole matter of our duties here, it is on this very question. And
as remarked by the gentleman who has just taken his seat we have a
series of resolutions as it were submitted by the gentleman from
Monongalia and we have not an hour to act upon this thing; and it
is a matter as I conceive of too much importance to cut it off in
this style. I think we may profit by considering it well and
carefully; and I am opposed to circumscribing or fixing a rule of
this sort that may effect materially so important a part of our
duties here in this body. I will trust we can trust ourselves.

THE PRESIDENT. I would remind the gentleman from Marion
the question is now on the amendment.

MR. HALL of Marion. The question as I understand it is on
the amendment of the resolution proposed by the gentleman from
Doddridge. I do not apprehend that amendment exactly. The amendment
is to be a limit to five minutes debate after half past four, is
it?

MR. STUART of Doddridge. The object of my amendment is
this: That a person who offers an amendment should have five
minutes to explain his amendment, and any person have five minutes
to reply to it.

MR. HALL of Marion. That would lead necessarily to the
introduction of amendments merely for the sake of debating the
other question. I have seen these things done. And it occurs to me
really that the resolution will be in the way and either do one of
two things: it will either cut us off from a proper consideration
of action on this; matter - or it will lead to doing indirectly
what we do not do directly. If it is the sense of the body as I am
satisfied it is; that we ought to close debate as rapidly as
possible; but I do not see that any good can result but great evil
may from circumscribing our action in this particular.

MR. BATTELLE. Mr. President, if the Convention are
disposed to take up an hour or two in discussing the resolution, I
had better withdraw it perhaps. I wish to say lest I be
misunderstood that I have been as much entertained and I will say
instructed and gratified by the debate that has gone before as any
gentleman; and I do not mean either directly or by implication to
cast any, even the slightest, reflection on the very able
discussions gentlemen have conducted here. But it must be apparent,
as I before said, that we have spent, I think I might say, an
enormous amount of time in this single question; and if we are not
instructed by this time the point is, when are we likely to be? We
have been nearly two weeks -

A MEMBER. One week.

MR. BATTELLE. Nearly two weeks. We met two weeks ago last
Tuesday; and nearly all the time has been spent on this single
debate.

SEVERAL MEMBERS. A week.

MR. BATTELLE. A week, is it? Well, I stand corrected,
then on that point. Well, it seems to me a long time; and the
resolution, I would say was not offered with a view of cutting off
any gentleman who may wish to speak. I am on principle opposed to
anything like what may be called a gag rule. It is merely for the
purpose of indicating a time at which we will take the vote and
with the hope that the discussions before voting will adjust
themselves to that time. If it be the pleasure of the Convention,
however, to take a different view of the subject, I shall very
submissively bow to their will and sit it out as patiently as any
of them.

MR. HERVEY. There is another table of eight or ten
counties to be taken up not yet before the Convention.

THE PRESIDENT. Do I understand the gentleman as
withdrawing his resolution?

MR. BATTELLE. By no means. I said I had better do it, if
the discussion on it was continued much longer.

The vote was then taken on the amendment offered by Mr. Stuart
of Doddridge, and it was rejected.

MR. STUART of Doddridge. Mr. President, I feel under the
necessity of making a statement to this Convention before we vote
on that resolution. We have a very complicated amendment now before
us, that I have not had time to read. There is another resolution
to be offered in regard to this boundary. There are members here
now from the counties of Loudoun and Fairfax that insist that they
shall be made into a district and have the privilege of voting
whether they will come into the State or not; and this will raise a
question, here. There is no doubt that those gentlemen, in the
other house, representing those counties, want to be here.

MR. BATTELLE. Allow me to make a suggestion. The
resolution now before us contemplates simply the report from the
committee of which the gentleman from Doddridge is chairman. It
contemplates no other aspect of the boundary question, no future
contingency that may arise - simply what is contained in your
report. I suppose of course, the admission or rejection of
delegates from Fairfax cannot enter into this report.

MR. STUART of Doddridge. It comes up as a motion for an
amendment to this report. And I may be under the necessity of
offering an amendment. It is treating these gentlemen with great
neglect, it appears to me. Their rights in this matter ought to be
heard, and their reasons. I will be under the necessity, although I
want to curtail debate - under the circumstances, I will have to
vote against the resolution.

MR. VAN WINKLE. I move to amend the resolution by
confining its operation to the third resolution of the report and
any amendments thereto. I apprehend that will reconcile it all
round.

THE PRESIDENT. Will the gentleman from Ohio accept the
amendment?

MR. BATTELLE. Yes, sir.

The question was then put and Mr. Battelle's resolution was
rejected.

MR. WILLEY. Since we have got off the regular line of
business I wish to make a motion. The Committee on the Judiciary
have not completed their report. A most difficult and material part
of that is arranging the circuits. I will be absent as indicated
this morning and move that Mr. Harrison of Harrison, be added to
the Committee on the Judiciary.

MR. HALL of Marion. I second the motion. The question was
put and the motion agreed to.

MR. STUART of Doddridge. Mr. President, I would like to
have the amendment of the gentleman from Monongalia reported.

The Secretary reported it as follows:

Strike out all after the word "Resolved," and insert -

"That the counties of Pendleton, Hardy and Hampshire ought to be
included in the proposed State of West Virginia, provided, a
majority of the votes cast in the said county of Pendleton, and
also in the said county of Hardy, and also in the said county of
Hampshire, at elections to be held therein, on the day of 1862, is
in favor of the adoption of the Constitution to be submitted by
this Convention.

RESOLVED, That the county of Morgan, ought to be included in the
said State, provided, a majority of the votes cast therein,
on the day aforesaid, is in favor of the adoption of said
Constitution, and provided, further, that the said counties
of Pendleton, Hardy and Hampshire shall be included therein as
aforesaid.

RESOLVED, That the county of Berkeley ought to be included in
the said State, provided, a majority of the votes cast
therein on the day aforesaid, is in favor of said Constitution; and
provided, further, that the said counties of Pendleton,
Hardy, Hampshire and Morgan shall be included therein as
aforesaid.

RESOLVED, That the county of Jefferson ought to be included in
the said State, provided, a majority of the votes cast
therein on the day aforesaid, is in favor of said Constitution; and
provided, further, that the said counties of Pendleton,
Hardy, Hampshire, Morgan and Berkeley shall be included therein as
aforesaid.

RESOLVED, That the county of Frederick ought to be included in
the said State, provided, a majority of the votes cast
therein on the day aforesaid, is in favor of the adoption of said
Constitution, and provided, further, that the counties of
Pendleton, Hardy, Hampshire, Morgan and Berkeley, shall be included
in the said State in manner and form aforesaid."

MR. STUART of Doddridge. Mr. President, I must be
permitted to say that the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Monongalia does appear to me to be one of the most unfair
amendments that has yet been offered in this body, and the most
antirepublican. I had thought that -

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair would suggest to the gentleman
from Doddridge that the rules restrict us to deny the right to use
unkind language.

MR. STUART of Doddridge. My friend knows that I would not
say anything that would be offensive in the least.

MR. WILLEY. I have the best evidence in the world that my
friend from Doddridge did not design anything of the kind. And
inasmuch as I have to leave will he allow me just a moment to
explain what I think and understand to be the operation of the
resolution, and then I will give him a fair field and a free fight.
I have about ten minutes.

I certainly did not offer it as any unfair, partial or
antirepublican proposition. If I could have the pleasure of
remaining here to hear the argument of my friend on that subject, I
do not think he would be able to show that it was so. My object
was, sir, to avoid the infraction of what I conceive would be a
fundamental republican principle. We are directly at issue on that
point. I have all along, in opposition to my friend contended that
we have no power to include peremptorily and arbitrarily any
counties outside of the limits, upon the ground, as I have
repeatedly alleged, that we ought not to impose on any people a
constitution in the formation of which they had not equal
representation, a full and fair opportunity of being heard. My
resolutions are introduced with a view of avoiding that infraction
as far as possible. For instance, I start with the counties of
Pendleton and Hardy. I had some hesitation whether I would include
the county of Hampshire; but in looking upon the map and consulting
what I conceived to be the best interests of the whole project, I
thought it was best to include that county also. Well, sir, if they
vote in favor of coming in the road is open to take the county next
adjoining in the tier of counties which we seem all to desire to
include. I acknowledge if they vote to stay out, the matter is at
an end, and you can include none. But then I think we have the
assurance, Mr. President, that if any of those counties are
disposed to come in it will be the counties of Pendleton, Hardy and
Hampshire - that in point of fact, practically, we lose nothing by
risking the contingency that they may decline to come in, because I
believe they are more ready to come in than any of those below.
They voting to come in, the way is open for the process which I
propose to make our request to the next, the county of Morgan
through which this railroad passes for a considerable distance. If
Morgan comes in the way is open for Berkeley and Jefferson, and
then we have the entire railroad included within the new State. And
my impression is that there can be no difficulty on the question
whether either of these counties will come in, because I believe if
a fair opportunity is afforded, which I hope may be given to them
by some arrangement of this Convention in the schedule, or
otherwise either at the time indicated in the resolution or at some
other time later, in the wisdom of the legislature - I have no
doubt when the opportunity is fairly offered to them and they have
a free opportunity of expressing their opinions on the subject that
all these counties will come in. Well, sir, to make a good
territory - to make a good form we ought to have also the county of
Frederick. But if it does not want to come in, it does not make any
difference about getting the counties which include the railroad,
because according to the provisions of the resolution they would
have been included. I suppose there is more doubt about Frederick
than in respect to any of the other counties. It is the last in the
category. All the others may come in although it does not. I
believe the others will come in and then we will have included the
railroad at any rate.

Now, sir, I have not time to go at large into the reasons why I
think this is the better proposition. I said I would speak briefly
and hurriedly of the operation of the proposed amendment and I have
to leave it in the hands of the Convention. I hope they will
consider it kindly and investigate it thoroughly.

MR. STUART of Doddridge. Mr. President, I have not yet
changed my opinion that this is the most unfair amendment that has
yet been offered and the one that will operate the most partially;
and I think it will take a very few words to prove this to this
Convention. I will promise my friend from Ohio that I will be very
brief. I have no doubt we are all tired of this discussion. Still,
sir, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Monongalia impels
me to say a few words, occupying the position I do in regard to
this movement - not because I like it at all, because I have not a
very good use of language, and it is difficult for me to express
even what I know or think.

I had during the process of the discussion here come to the
conclusion that the gentleman from Monongalia really desired and
wanted these railroad counties - Pendleton, Hardy, Hampshire,
Morgan, Berkeley, Jefferson, and the other, Frederick. But, sir, I
am compelled, looking at this amendment offered by the gentleman to
come to the conclusion that he does not want this territory. And I
will be compelled to draw that conclusion towards every member of
this Convention who votes for this amendment in its present form;
and for reasons, sir, that are so apparent that they cannot help
but be seen.

The first resolution starts out:

"RESOLVED, That the counties of Pendleton, Hardy, and Hampshire
ought to be included in the proposed State of West Virginia,
provided, a majority of the votes cast in the said county of
Pen- dieton, and also in the said county of Hardy, and also in the
said county of Hampshire, at elections to be held therein on the
day of , 1862, is in favor of the adoption of the Constitution to
be submitted by this Convention."

Now, sirs, take up this map; look at the location of that
country - Morgan, Berkeley and Jefferson - you will find a
territory there embracing a hundred miles or more. And according to
the recommendation of this resolution you say to the little county
of Pendleton with some three or perhaps four thousand of a white
population, stuck up away off there in the southwest portion of
that territory, you have a right with your population of three or
four thousand whites to control the entire action of the entire
boundary embraced in the resolution - you little county of
Pendleton have a right to rise and survey this field and say you
are lord of all you survey. If you cast twenty votes in the county
of Pendleton against the adoption of this Constitution, although
the counties of Hampshire, Hardy, Morgan, Berkeley and Jefferson -
the entire five or six remaining counties - vote with an
overwhelming majority in favor of the Constitution - yet under the
provisions of this Constitution you say to the county of Pendleton
although you cast but ten votes against it, you defeat the will and
pleasure and wish of the entire district. Now, gentlemen, is not
that anti-republican? Is not that unfair? Am I borne out in the
assertion that this was the most unfair amendment and was really
anti-republican, because you place it in the power of some three or
four thousand to control the action and influence and conduct and
destiny of some 20,000 or 30,000 people - some 40,000 - some
50,000? Look at the census of the county of Pendleton. It is one of
the remote counties, off to one end of the district, not lying
bordering upon Jefferson, Berkeley or Morgan, but up adjoining the
county, I believe of Hardy. Now I think that I am not mistaken in
the fact that this county has not a population exceeding perhaps
4,000. And this little county, as I remarked, you give the
authority to control the destinies, as I remarked, of a population
of people of some 50,000. If that is not the correct reading and
interpretation and understanding of this resolution, I admit, sir,
that I must be mistaken.

"RESOLVED, That the counties of Pendleton, Hardy and Hampshire
ought to be included in the proposed State of West Virginia,
provided, a majority of the votes cast in the said county of
Pendleton, and also in the said county of Hardy, and also in the
said county of Hampshire" -

And then it goes on and takes up the county of Morgan, which
ought to be included.

" - provided, a majority of the votes cast therein on the
day aforesaid is in favor of the adoption of said Constitution, and
provided, further, that the said counties of Pendleton,
Hardy and Hampshire shall be included therein as aforesaid."

And so it goes on down till you come to Jefferson. Still take
the whole connection of the resolutions as offered, and the county
of Pendleton can defeat the whole action of this class of counties
embraced in this resolution.

I am now in favor of adopting if possible the resolution of the
committee as now amended; and that is, to let these counties remain
in the district and let the majority of the votes cast there decide
the question. If a majority be in favor of the Constitution, and a
majority of counties be in favor of it, then, sirs, let them come
in. I believe that is the best we can now do. I do hope this body
will not vote to adopt this resolution and say to Pendleton -
because the secessionists will have nothing in the world to do but
to rally the little county of Pendleton and vote against your new
Constitution, to defeat the rest. They are about as sharp as most
people. They will look at this thing. They will cast around them
and see how they are going to defeat you getting this district of
country taking in this railroad. Mind they want to check you off of
that and they will cast round. And as I have said, they are pretty
sharp. They will see where to strike. All their efforts will be at
the smallest county; and they will rally to this county and vote
against the Constitution and defeat the very object you have in
view.

MR. HALL of Marion. I wish only to say, sir, upon the
vote being taken on this and its rejection, I hope, by the body. I
shall move to reconsider the vote rejecting the proposition of the
gentleman from Ohio voted on yesterday. I voted against that
yesterday; and it would be competent to reconsider it. I name that
now as the proposition. I shall move to reconsideration of that,
that upon the rejection of this, provision may be made as
contemplated by the proposed amendment of the gentleman from Ohio
yesterday. I voted against it yesterday because I preferred another
matter, the other resolution to which it was a proposed amendment.
I trust this may be voted down and the other adopted.

MR. LAMB. Mr. President, I am sincerely favorable to
including the counties contemplated by the third resolution of the
report of the Committee on Boundary. I think it must be apparent
from the explanation given by the gentleman from Doddridge that to
pass this amendment would defeat that object. That is all I have to
say. Under such circumstances, I shall have to vote against the
amendment.

MR. RUFFNER. Mr. President, is it to be understood, sir,
that all these various propositions are to be voted on at once as a
single proposition?

THE PRESIDENT. I so understand it - that the substitute
or amendment goes altogether. Does any person call for a
division?

MR. LAMB. There is no use dividing the question, because
if the first proposition is rejected the last propositions are
impossible and unless the first is adopted you cannot adopt the
other amendments. They necessarily go in a body.

MR. VAN WINKLE. I was going to say that I believed I
should have to put myself in the same list with the gentleman from
Ohio and vote against this amendment. I was anxious this morning to
give the gentleman from Monongalia an opportunity to get his
amendment before the house and explain it. I thought it was at
least worthy of consideration and I have endeavored to give it that
consideration; and I have come to the conclusion, with the
gentlemen who have spoken, that it will to some extent operate
unfairly. I think, sir, that the effect of it will be injurious to
our prospects, at least, when one county finds that its vote
however cast is to be decided by the vote of another county in that
way, there will be less exertion. For instance a report may spread
in one county that another county upon which it is dependent, is
going to vote against it, and they will give themselves no more
trouble. I am therefore afraid of the operation of it. My great
solicitude to have these counties cast in their lot with us,
induces me to give to everything that is proposed to further that
object as much consideration as I can; and my mind has come to the
conclusion, sir, in reference to the proposed amendment, that it is
not so likely to do it.

In connection with that I have even more maturely considered the
resolution as it stands, and I believe it is upon the whole the
fairest proposition that can be made. It is so fair, sir, an
extension of courtesy, that it goes beyond what might seem
absolutely to be required. Upon the principle alluded to this
morning that we are taking these people in by districts, a majority
of the votes in the whole district would seem to be sufficient. But
owing to the circumstances in which those counties are placed and
our want of full and accurate information concerning them, in order
to counteract if possible the effect of merely partial voting in
any county, we have had the provision that a majority of the
counties shall vote affirmatively. Then it certainly requires that
a majority of the counties - say six out of ten - if there are so
many - four out of seven - must positively give an affirmative vote
in favor of being connected with us. And then the affirmative vote
given in those counties and in the rest of the district must be a
heavier vote than is cast in all the counties against it. This is
giving them a competent ratio by which the fact of their adherence
to the new State is to be determined. And I think gentlemen will
find that it is going about as far as it is possible to go -
considering always that we wish them to come in if a full majority
of their people, if that could be ascertained - are in favor of it.
While we have given up the idea of compelling them to come in, and
are to leave them free to decide it for themselves, as I have more
than once observed, the mode first reported by the committee
originally is the fairest mode that can be propounded, to them.
Those are my present sentiments, after a good deal of reflection.
The amendment that has been indicated by the gentleman from Marion
does not reflect against what I said. I am speaking of the general
features in reference to the mode of voting, and what amount of it
shall determine the question. I repeat again that proposed by the
resolution is as fair as we can possibly make it.

MR. DILLE. I do not rise for the purpose of making any
extended remarks upon the amendment presented by my friend from
Monongalia; but I desire to say in reply to my friend from
Doddridge that if we should vote against this amendment and in
favor of the original proposition as it stands without amending, we
will have more trouble on his Baltimore connection than he
imagines. Personally, it may be known to you all, or the greater
proportion of the members of this Convention, that I have warm
sympathies and feelings in connection with this batch of counties,
situated as I am, as I have been, and as I expect to be, their
connection with the people among whom I live is so intimate that we
feel a deep interest in reference to these counties. But I would
call gentlemen's attention to this fact, that as the resolution now
stands, if we pass upon it, have a disconnected state. We may have
a state with no connection whatever. I understand - and if
gentlemen will look upon the map they will see - that there are
seven counties now embraced in this resolution, and the purport of
the resolution is this: "that if a majority of the votes cast
within said district" - that is the first provision - "on the third
Thursday of April, in the year 1862, and a majority of the said
counties, are in favor of the adoption of this Constitution" - now,
sir, to show you this state of things may exist, you have only to
look at your map and see that it is at least possible and I think
highly probable that this state of things may exist. Suppose for
instance, the counties of Jefferson, Berkeley, Frederick and
Morgan, four out of the seven, cast a majority of their votes in
favor of the present Constitution, then they are a majority of the
entire seven counties having cast their votes in that way, they
will be disconnected entirely from the residue of the State already
taken in by our previous action. Gentlemen may say that this is not
possible, but I think it is not only possible but highly probable.
Suppose the armies should be removed from the county of Jefferson,
Berkeley, Morgan and Frederick before this time, and it should not
be removed from the other counties, then the armies being removed
they may cast their vote and desire to come in and be a part of the
territory. But supposing then that you pursue a different course
and say that the majority comes in the other way, why you embrace
counties then entirely against their will. But in the other
connection and in compliance with the resolutions of the gentleman
from Monongalia if you take in one of these counties you take them
all. In fact you may embrace every county within this region of
country; and it is my conviction upon that subject that if we
embrace a portion of these counties then we ought to embrace them
all. They are connected and identified with us. They really belong
to us so far as their interests are concerned. It may be that I am
under a misapprehension and really after a little reflection I am
inclined to believe that I may be under a misapprehension. Suppose
four of these counties decided against it. Why then we lose them
all. Supposing a majority of these votes cast against it, we lose
the whole batch, and we lose them because of a certain contingency.
Suppose, Jefferson or Berkeley, Morgan or Frederick decided the
other way, why, sir, then we lose our railroad connection and the
whole batch is lost. And then we have no connection whatever. But
take the resolutions now before the Convention as a substitute for
these resolutions, you take in these three counties that are
immediately connected with us, who are lying right by our side, and
having connected them it becomes a continued chain, and we embrace
the whole.

MR. HALL of Marion. Mr. President, let me correct the
idea the gentleman from Preston has taken of this. If I understand
him he says that under that resolution if we take in a part of the
counties that vote in favor of coming in and the others should not
then we would have these counties in without having any connection
with them. I understand this resolution is either to take them in
whole or part of them.

MR. DILLE. Suppose these four counties vote the other
way, then you get no part of them.

MR. HALL of Marion. No part of them. That I understand to
be the effect.

The question on the adoption of the substitute offered by Mr.
Willey was put and it was rejected.

MR. SINSEL. If it would be in order, I move the previous
question.

MR. HALL of Marion. I trust the gentleman, after the
announcement I made, will not move the previous question until I
have an opportunity of moving reconsideration.

MR. SINSEL. That is the very thing I want to move it for.
I will withdraw it.

MR. HALL of Marion. I now wish, Mr. President, to move to
reconsider the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio on
yesterday; and upon the question I shall only say this.

MR. VAN WINKLE. State the substance of it.

MR. HERVEY. I call the gentleman's attention to the
eighth rule.

MR. HALL of Marion. The eighth rule saying that a
question being once determined must stand as the judgment of the
Convention and shall not again be drawn into debate. That does not
interfere at all with what I propose. It is always in order to
reconsider.

The Secretary reported the amendment as follows: By inserting in
the third resolution, after the words, "third Thursday in April, in
the year 1862" the words, "or such other day as the legislature of
Virginia may appoint," in the twenty- fourth line.

MR. HALL of Marion. I voted against this yesterday
because I preferred the original resolution to which this was an
amendment. The Convention having by a tie vote rejected the
resolution which I was anxious should have been adopted, it occurs
to me then it is eminently proper whilst we provide for taking the
vote of these people that we provide against a contingency which
all admit may arise or exist when the vote of these people may be
taken, if not upon that specific day, upon such other day as the
legislature in its wisdom and under circumstances all of which will
be known to them, may determine. It occurs to me, when we propose
to give them the privilege we ought to provide the way and means to
give them an opportunity to vote on it. I do not desire to occupy
any time with the discussion of the question.

MR. PARKER. Mr. President, as I remarked yesterday it
seems to me that this, as was well remarked by the gentleman from
Wood, peculiarly a question which should be deferred for the
present. As I remarked yesterday for the Convention here to now
transfer to make over to the legislature, the power of fixing it
when -

THE PRESIDENT. I would remind the gentleman that the
question is on the reconsideration.

MR. PARKER. Not upon its merits. I wish to speak upon its
merits.

MR. HAGAR. I have objection to the amendment, provided in
the wisdom of the legislature they change the election for the
whole State. If it is in reference to the whole State - if the
legislature may change the day for holding the election, not in
that particular district but for the whole State, I am opposed to
the amendment.

MR. PARKER. I am, Mr. President, against the
reconsideration. The question was fully argued yesterday, as I
understand, by several parties and deliberately settled. It seems
to me we have enough ahead to get along with without going back,
where the thing has been well argued and settled, without going
back and going over it again. The motion suggested by the gentleman
from Ohio indicated a short time ago of limiting discussion on this
boundary question on which we have been spending so much time, I
was in favor of. I was certainly desirous of getting through with
this question as soon as possible and do justice to it. I must
therefore for the reason that it was thoroughly argued and settled
yesterday, object to this reconsideration.

MR. HERVEY. I would desire the explanation of the Chair
upon the eighth rule. It stares me, sir, in the face, and I really
cannot get over it: "A question being once determined must stand as
the judgment of the Convention and shall not again be drawn into
debate." Now was not this matter decided last night?

THE PRESIDENT. The Chair would remind the gentleman from
Brooke that that rule does not apply to questions of
reconsideration. The motion to reconsider is ruled by the Chair to
be in order.

MR. POMEROY. I would suggest to my friend from Marion to
withdraw that and let us get through and vote on the question of
boundary. If that is reconsidered it will open a lengthy discussion
on that very question. I would just suggest to him to withdraw it
for the time and let it come up again.

MR. HALL of Marion. I would withdraw it with a great deal
of pleasure, and never introduce it, if it is to be the subject of
so much discussion, if it were not for the fact that it is a part
and parcel of the very terms and conditions on which we are to
admit this very question of boundary; and for that reason it is
necessary that it should be acted on now. It is a part of this
thing. I cannot disconnect it. I would accommodate my friend if I
could do so.

MR. CARSKADON. I hope it may be the pleasure of this
Convention to reconsider the amendment that was voted down
yesterday. I think it will give us a greater advantage in having a
chance to vote; and therefore I think it an advantage to the
counties named, and I do not think there is any need of much
discussion on the subject as it was fully discussed yesterday; and
I think there being different circumstances today, that they might
change and no doubt will as they have changed the mind of the
gentleman from Marion, the vote on this question if it is put upon
its passage again.

The motion to reconsider was agreed to; and the question on the
amendment offered yesterday by Mr. Lamb, which was to amend the
third resolution of the report of the Committee on Boundary by
inserting after the words "third Thursday in April, in the year
1862," in the twenty-fourth line, the words, "or such other day as
the legislature of Virginia may appoint."

MR. VAN WINKLE. That brings up the amendment of the
gentleman from Ohio. I want to move to amend that amendment by
inserting after "or," in the words thereby proposed to be inserted,
these words: "if from any cause such elections are not held on that
day, then on," so that the legislature may provide for holding them
on a later day. It does not leave the whole subject open to the
legislature. But if on the day appointed, the elections are not
held from any cause whatever, the legislature may then appoint a
later day for holding it.

MR. LAMB. I accept the amendment; that is the intention
of the resolution.

MR. PARKER. Mr. President, I wish to say a word on the
merits. Under this resolution, as I understand this question is to
be submitted to the vote of these counties. If anything happens
that on the third Thursday of April, 1862 - anything in the
judgment of the legislature - that the vote cannot then be taken,
then it must afterwards be submitted to all the counties, every one
of them, before our proceedings in getting the new State can go any
further. If anything between this and the 19th of April should
transpire that in the judgment of the legislature, it would not be
practical to submit it and get the vote of all these counties, then
the whole matter is postponed - postponed nobody can tell how long.
Now between this and the 19th of April nobody can tell what will be
the condition and feelings of our present legislature. I suppose it
is competent for other counties, as far as the seaboard counties,
to elect any time they choose to send their delegates to our
legislature. Things may change in a week. The enemy may be swept
away from the whole of eastern Virginia, Richmond reclaimed by the
Federal forces and the whole of eastern Virginia may be represented
in our legislature. So far as our legislature is now composed I
have as much confidence in that body as in any other; but there is
an uncertainty there; but if we conferred upon a legislature liable
to be changed - even if I believed we possess the power to so
delegate that power it would be unsafe and unwise to commit a
matter of that importance to such a contingency. Suppose this
should take place and an unfriendly legislature should come here
and they postpone it and postpone it, and the whole thing is gone.
That is inevitable. But I hold we have no power to delegate it. It
is not a matter of delegation. We have the power; we can recommend
and ask the legislature to do certain things. We can ask them to
change these boundaries; but our Convention is competent to fix
when the votes are to be taken. If we ask them to change the bounds
on certain conditions, when the time comes to prepare the schedule,
we can fix the conditions on which or the time when the vote shall
be taken. We shall probably be here a month; some say six weeks.
Well, we can tell better at the end of that time than we can now
what will be needful and can fix it in the schedule. Why do it now?
It can be done at any time before the Convention adjourns sine
die. I hold so far as I am concerned that this power is.
committed to me alone. I have no discretion over it. It is confided
to us as a matter of trust and we have no right to delegate it to
another. No principle of law or equity is better settled than where
a personal trust is given it cannot be delegated. Can I transfer
the little powers conferred on me here by my constituents and put
somebody in my place? No, Mr. President; it is a breach of trust.
The delegates cannot without the consent of their constituency
transfer so important a matter - a power to postpone it forever and
perfectly frustrate the whole object and the new State from the
beginning. In the last six months the reorganized government has
spent hundreds and thousands of dollars to get up a new State and
now we go and place the whole of it in the power of a legislature
of whom in four months may be three-fourths will be against us. And
they will postpone it till the day of judgment. I am against
it.

MR. LAMB. I merely wish to say in reference to the
amendment, the Convention will perceive that it can only operate in
a single case - that these elections cannot be held on the day
designated. It is not proposed to postpone the day at all.

MR. PARKER. May I ask a question. Suppose it be found in
the course of events which we cannot anticipate that it is
impossible to hold the elections on that day.

MR. LAMB. In such case it provides that the elections may
be held at the earliest moment they can be. I trust I appreciate
properly the character of this Convention; yet I am very far from
supposing that all wisdom or propriety will be extinct when this
Convention shall have finally adjourned, or that there is no other
body of men delegated by the same people Who are entitled to the
confidence of the people of West Virginia. I take it that the
legislature which assembles here, representing virtually the people
of West Virginia, elected really by the same constituents that sent
us here, are just as anxious as any of us can be to go on and
perfect the organization of the new State and that they will do
nothing any more than ourselves that would be inconsistent with our
great objects. But why talk of delegating power to the legislature?
Why this argument urged on this Convention? Why, gentlemen, that
legislature may do just what they please in regard to this matter.
They do not ask you to delegate any power to them. All you can do
is to recommend to that same legislature to direct the election to
be held. Your recommendation may have great weight; but so far from
your delegating power to them it is merely a proposition to them,
carrying with it, it is true, the weight which would justly attach
to it under the circumstances; but having no legal force. Our whole
proceedings are mere recommendation to the legislature and the
people - to the legislature in order that they may adopt such
measures as will tend to secure the people a free expression of
opinion upon the result of our labors - a recommendation to the
people that they may be pleased to ratify what we shall have to
submit to them.

MR. POMEROY. Will the gentleman from Ohio explain this
point: If the legislature find elections cannot be held on the day
appointed at what time in the opinion of the gentleman will they
designate the day of election? And provided that three out of seven
counties vote on the day specified, and the other counties do not
vote, and give a large number in favor, and upon another day the
other counties vote and give a much larger vote against, will that
not defeat the whole seven counties coming in? I submit that to the
gentlemen who are so urgent for all these counties to come in. I
just wish to add, might not the single county of Frederick poll a
vote that would overbalance the other six counties if they knew
just exactly what vote they would have to poll? How will the
legislature know that the way is not clear until the day passes?
And then how long in the future is that day to be specified? Can it
possibly be more than forty days - later than the first of June -
if we want to get this matter before the present session? And will
it not give the one county the power to overbalance all the other
six counties?

MR. LAMB. I thought in the remarks I made yesterday I had
fully explained what I think will be the operation of this
resolution. If it be impossible to take a vote in these counties,
with communications by railroad and telegraph, that matter will be
known to the legislature within two days at farthest; and they can
immediately take such action as may tend to facilitate as far as
possible, if it be possible. It may be the legislature would be
satisfied it would be impossible to accomplish the object. All such
questions must necessarily be left to the action of that body, who
will have then much more light on this subject than we have now and
will be able to meet every contingency and difficulty I have no
doubt, with as much propriety as we can meet it. As to the
difficulty the gentleman raises in regard to the vote in one
county, the legislature will provide properly for that, no doubt,
if any proper provision is practicable under the circumstances. The
whole object of this motion is simply to get these counties in, if
it be possible, and whenever it can be found that upon a fair
expression of the sentiment of this district of territory the
people there desire to come in.

MR. PARKER. One moment. I cannot agree with the gentleman
that it is a recommendation; but suppose it is. What is the
necessity of our making that recommendation now, this early? We can
make it any time before we adjourn. There is no necessity for its
being made now. Why tie our hands up now? Even in the form he
wishes the recommendation will have no weight until we get through
- before we adjourn. We shall get a good deal of light doubtless,
as he remarks, before that time expires. Shall we tie our hands up
now and conclude ourselves for always, or shall we wait until the
time arrives when we are obliged to dissolve the Convention? Then
perhaps the condition of the country will be so that we can fix to
a certainty. We can say to the legislature, we wish you to appoint
such a day and take the sense of these people. Or then we can
qualify it. If it happens it cannot be taken on that day, then
within forty days, thirty or twenty. We can put some limit; not
give them forever. That is my objection.

MR. POWELL. It seems to me that by adopting this
amendment we shall cause considerable delay in getting our
Constitution before Congress. Yesterday without properly reflecting
on the subject I voted for the amendment. I shall necessarily have
to vote against it today, taking this view of the subject as I
do.

MR. LAMB. I wish to make just one remark -

MR. HERVEY. One moment. We will have no legislature at
the time indicated in the motion. We disclaim, of course, any
disposition to distrust the legislature. There is nothing of that
kind involved on our part; but the term of the session will have
expired fully one month before this proposition can reach them. Now
it will involve a delay of near a whole year, not four or five
months. The legislature will not assemble and cannot act on this
proposition for one year from this date, or nearly so.

A MEMBER. Two years.

MR. HERVEY. Now to make the action of the legislature
certain we must presuppose there will be an extra session. We have
no knowledge there will be such; and consequently I cannot vote for
this. I think it will be an indefinite postponement.

MR. LAMB. I am certainly somewhat surprised at the
objections urged to this resolution; and in reply to the remark of
the gentleman from Brooke, I would say that all of our proceedings
contemplate that the legislature must be in session here as soon as
this Constitution is ratified by the people and give their consent
and send on the Constitution to Congress at the very earliest
moment. Therefore if you want their action - if it be found
impossible to take the vote at the time appointed, they are here in
session - necessarily so. In regard to the idea that it will
postpone the action of Congress I take it for granted we may leave
that to the legislature. If the legislature, which will then be in
session, consent to the formation of the new State, we know that if
they find that ordering any vote will delay action, cannot we trust
them on that question?

MR. PAXTON. It appears to me there is one amendment that
might be adopted with propriety before proceeding to a vote. I
refer to the clause here fixing the day at which the vote should be
taken. I presume it is the intention that the counties named in the
resolution shall vote at the same time as the others in the bounds
of the State. Such being the case, if we adopt the resolution, as
here, which reads: "provided a majority of the votes cast within
the said district, at elections to be held for the purpose on the
third Thursday of April, 1862, or, if from any cause such elections
are not held on that day, then on such other day as the legislature
of Virginia may appoint," we fix a time for the vote to be taken on
this Constitution.

THE PRESIDENT. I would remark to the gentleman from Ohio
that the impression of the Chair is that the whole work will have
to be reviewed, and that so far as these dates are concerned it is
very uncertain what they may be.

MR. PAXTON. I thank the Chair; but still I do not see why
we should now do anything that we may have to undo hereafter. I was
going to suggest to strike out "on the third Thursday of April,
1862;" and that the blank be left to be filled when we have agreed
on some day, as we must, in the future for submitting this to the
counties. The suggestion occurred to me; and I move - unless I am
mistaken in my view of the case - to amend by striking out the date
and leaving the blank to be filled hereafter when we will have
agreed upon a date at which the Constitution itself will be
submitted to the people for ratification.

MR. STUART of Doddridge. I must be permitted to say a
word or two. The committee in fixing that time took into
consideration the fact that we desired to submit this Constitution
to the people and to the legislature in ample time to get it before
Congress; and that the committee desired to extend the time as far
as possible in order to accommodate these people who are laboring
under the disadvantage of being overrun by the rebel army. We
thought the later we could put it in order to suit our views and
not to hinder our Constitution going before Congress the better it
would be for our people. It strikes me the time is as near right as
we can fix it. It may be before we can finish our labors here, it
will be necessary to change it. It is unnecessary to strike out
now. It can be stricken out when it comes up for final
consideration.

MR. VAN WINKLE. It does not necessarily follow that the
time in the forty-four counties will be the same. When we reach
that point in the Constitution, it will be provided for. As the
gentleman says the time was considered; and in inquiring when
Congress would probably adjourn, it was considered that that was as
long a time as could be given. That is the reason why the day is
fixed. But I think it had better remain.

MR. PAXTON. I am not disposed to be at all pertinacious
about this matter; but I cannot see what propriety there is in
naming a day when it is to be changed if we intend the vote to be
taken there at the same time as in the other counties. Why not
leave it blank? We have to fix the day when this shall be submitted
and this vote taken. Why determine that now? Why do a thing now
that we shall have to do hereafter? Why not leave this blank and
let the blank be filled when we determine, as we must do, the day
for submitting to all the counties?

The question upon Mr. Paxton's motion being put, there was a tie
vote. The President voted in the negative; so the motion was not
agreed to.

MR. STUART of Doddridge. Mr. President, I now move we
have a vote on the passage of the resolution, and I desire the ayes
and nays, and hope we shall adopt it.

The Secretary reported the amended resolution as follows:

RESOLVED, That the district comprising the counties of
Jefferson, Berkeley, Morgan, Hampshire, Hardy, Pendleton, and
Frederick, shall also be included in, and constitute part of, the
proposed new State - provided a majority of the votes cast within
the said district, at elections to be held for the purpose on the
third Thursday in April, in the year 1862, or, if from any cause
such elections are not held on that day, then on such other day as
the legislature of Virginia may appoint, and a majority of the said
counties, are in favor of the adoption of the Constitution to be
submitted by this Convention.

MR. STEVENSON of Wood. If the gentleman will give way,
was merely going to state that I would offer a resolution now
before any business came up - one that would not excite any
discussion.

MR. STEVENSON sent his resolution to the Secretary who reported
it as follows;

RESOLVED, That a committee be appointed, to be called the
Committee on Revision and Engrossment, and to be composed of the
chairmen of the several standing committees on the Constitution,
whose duty it shall be to revise the language, and arrangement of
the several articles, sections and clauses of the Constitution, and
to report the same, with the alterations they propose for the final
action of the Convention.

The resolution was adopted.

The President stated that the question recurred on the fourth
resolution of the report of the Committee on Boundary, which was
reported by the Secretary as follows:

RESOLVED, That the district comprising the counties of Clarke,
Warren, Shenandoah, Page, Rockingham, Augusta, Rockbridge, and
Botetourt, shall also be included in, and constitute part of, the
proposed new State - provided a majority of the votes cast within
the said district, at elections to be held for the purpose on the
third Thursday in April, in the year 1862, and a majority of the
said counties, are in favor of the adoption of the Constitution to
be submitted by this Convention.

The question on this resolution was put, and it was
rejected.

The question recurring upon the fifth and last resolution of the
report, it was reported by the Secretary as follows:

RESOLVED, That this Convention respectfully requests the general
assembly to make suitable provision for holding the elections
mentioned in the preceding resolutions.

The resolution was adopted.

MR. BROWN of Kanawha and MR. VAN WINKLE rose.

MR. BROWN of Kanawha. In looking at that resolution, it
refers -

MR. VAN WINKLE. I believe I was first on the floor. I was
merely going to observe, sir, that the question would now recur on
the adoption of the whole report; and that therefore as that might
excite some debate, I was disposed to favor an adjournment.

MR. BROWN of Kanawha. The resolution asks the legislature
to make suitable provision for holding the elections mentioned in
the preceding sections and the preceding sections refer only to
taking a vote in these counties to come in or not and no provision
for taking the vote in the counties within the fixed
boundaries.